Sem IV- Political Science

Q. Discuss Gandhi’s theory of State.

- (i) Ideal State

Gandhiji's views on state and government were based on the fundamental principles of his philosophy
i.e. truth and nonviolence and his personal experiences he gathered While confronted with various
problems of society. Gandhi considered every question from two angles the ideal and practical, the
former signifying the level of perfection and latter signifying the level from which man or society has to
be raised.

No doubt the structure of nonviolent state would be in accordance with principles of satyagraha but the
details would be determined by the people according to their moral level and their preferences. Gandhiji
therefore felt that to try to determine in detail the institutional forms of the future non violent state was
premature and unscientific.

He said when society is deliberately constructed in accordance with the law of nonviolence then the
resulting state will be non violent and if the means are tainted with violence then the resulting state will
be neither nonviolent nor democratic. For the strong will seize power and exploit the weak. For which
he repeatedly said “Ahimsa comes before swaraj.”

In the evolution of non violent state the determinant is not the visualization of institutional structure but
the soul force i.e. the non violence of the average individual. if people are not genuinely non violent,
exploitation and violence may continue as they do in most of the Western countries even under an
apparently democratic constitution on the other hand if people learn to cooperate among themselves
voluntarily and non-cooperate with exploiter, the nonviolent state will emerge spontaneously as the by-
product of the practice of nonviolence.

Gandhi's ideal of a stateless society logically follows from his view of non violence and his passion for
individual freedom. The state even though ‘its machinery be most democratic, is rooted in violence.
Violence implies exploitation and every state exploits the poor. The state represents violence in a
concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul but as the state is a soulless machine, it can
never be weaned from violence to which it owns its very existence.

(ii) Practical state

An ideal society as envisaged by Gandhi’s unrealizable since it essentially demands situation of

perfection which can be realised only when all people become perfect and acquire complete self control
(swaraj) and performs willingly their social obligations and self imposed duties without operation of the
state. It remains ideal which cannot be attained completely because of human imperfection.

He believed that no government can succeed in becoming entirely non-violent because it represents all
the public. He also clarified that he did not conceive such a golden age. Thus the imperfections of the
individuals convinced him to search for a more practical social order. He admits the existence of the
state but he provides it a limited role in society. Like Henry Thoreau his preference is for a state which
governs the least.

Gandhi accepts the state as an indispensable entity but it should be a means to promote the good of the
people. It has to carry out the will of the people and can be a means for securing the greatest good and
happiness of all citizens. So the people are expected to owe loyalty to it only so long as it performs its
duties and responsibilities properly and democratically and refrains from oppressing them. People have
the right to resist the authority of the state when it is abused or misused. They have the power to
change the government when it tries to be dictatorial.

In this form of government an individual shall enjoy maximum freedom of thought, expression and
participation in decision making and decision implementation process similarly people should retain
political power in their hand to ensure minimum interference of the state and to establish self
government and to avoid coercive control. On the other hand Gandhi does believe in the state as entity
in which government and law becomes part and parcel of life of common man.

Gandhi seeks to build up a democratic structure from below- the self government (the real swaraj) by
awakening into the masses a sense of their power and dignity. He reminds the people that they
constitute the real power. Gandhiji’s social order is not power oriented as he is fully conscious of the
fact that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the only remedy to this dichotomy,
to him, is dispersal of power and therefore he follows a decentralized structure of government.
Q. Explain Gandhi as a Philosophical Anarchist.

- Intro

Two basic principles, Truth and Nonviolence, are the foundations of Gandhi's philosophy. At the highest
level of experience, they merge and become one with God. His ideal of life, self-realisation, therefore, is
couched in ideal terms, when the Unity of Man and God has also been achieved. Gandhi, however, is
fully aware that in actual fact, at the present level of human experience, there is a gulf between man
and God; indeed, this gulf will never be completely bridged as long as we are in this body. "Being
necessarily limited by the bonds of flesh we can achieve perfection only after the dissolution of the
body." But while in this body, the gulf can certainly be narrowed. Thus recognising the imperfect nature
of man, Gandhi's prescription would be to follow the relative truth persistently which he called
"satyagraha". This shows the dynamic character of his ideas.

Truth

The Indian word for truth is ‘Satya’ which is derived from ‘Sat’ which means ‘being’ from this Gandhi
concludes that truth means that which exists and that in reality nothing exists except truth. That is why
Gandhiji identified truth with God and believed that pursuit of truth which involves suffering sometimes
even till death, was true devotion or the correct path that led to god & Devotion to truth is the essence
of Gandhism. In Gandhi’s view, God and truth are inseparable. Devotion to God can be carried out
through devotion to his creation particularly through the service of the downtrodden.

Gandhiji said God, as truth had been a great treasure for him beyond any price and he wanted it to be so
to everyone. He believed that “where there was truth there existed knowledge”. Gandhiji said
“observation of the law of truth is understood merely to mean that we must speak the truth,but we
should understand the word Satya or Truth in a much wider sense. There should be Truth in Thought,
Truth in Speech and Truth in Action.

According to Gandhiji everyone should devote themselves to Truth in all hours “whether working,
eating, drinking or playing till your soul unifies with the truth (God)- In shortall activities of life must be
centred around the Truth. Gandhiji called his movement as Satyagraha movement’ which means “a
movement led by a force which is born out of intense desire to follow the path of Truth” (Satya+Agraha=
Satyagraha)

It is not enough that one stops or avoids telling lies but one also shouldn’t practice treachery in any form
whatsoever, even it is for the good of the country. One must be prepared to undergo any suffering for
the sake of Truth. Truth was to be practised not only passively but actively. All activities should be
centred on the Truth and the path of Truth should be followed at any cost even at the cost of one’s life.

Non-Violence

Gandhi's adoption of nonviolence as a method of pursuing truth is due to the fact that man, imperfect as
he is, can only strive, he cannot command the result. Perfect nonviolence, being the attribute of God
alone, cannot be practised by human beings.
Being a part of society, man cannot but participate in "himsa" that the very existence of society involves.
Gandhi, therefore, would consider a person true to his faith if "there is an effort to avoid the violence
that is inevitable in life". That is how Gandhi's ideal of nonviolence is translated into actual practice. In
essence, it consists "in allowing others the maximum of convenience at the maximum inconvenience to
us, even at the risk of life. Everyone has to determine for himself the amount of inconvenience he is
capable of putting up with. No third party can determine it for him."

Gandhiji's concept of non violence was born out of religious teachings. nonviolence is the essence of
Buddhism. Buddha teaches ahimsa both as love and avoidance of injury to self and others. ahimsa is
expressed through love, pity,tenderness and impartiality. Buddha laid considerable stress on non-
violence, celibacy, non-possession and non-stealing. Gandhiji being a true disciple of Buddha adopted
and practiced same code of morality for achieving salvation.

Ahimsa doesn't only mean abstinence from killing but also abstinence from hurting event to those
whom one believed to be unjust. The satyagrahi will conquer the tyrant by love. A Satyagrahi instead of
carrying out tyrants orders will suffer punishment even unto death. Gandhiji said the path of Ahimsa is a
narrow as it is straight even like the path of truth. It is like balancing oneself on the edge of the sword.
Even balancing oneself on the rope is easy but concentration required following the path of truth and
ahimsa is far greater. The slightest inattention brings one tottering to the ground one can realise truth
and ahimsa only by ceaseless striving.
Q. Examine Gandhi’s views on Swaraj.

- Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj manifests his firm commitment to moral individualism. The term 'Swaraj"
literally means 'self-rule', 'self-government’, ‘self-determination’ or 'independence'. This term became
popular during India's struggle for independence. Gandhi sought to expand its meaning and scope.

Gandhi argued that Swaraj did not simply mean political independence from the foreign rule; it also
implied the idea of cultural and moral independence. If a country is politically independent but culturally
dependent on others for choosing its course of action, it would be devoid of Swaraj. Swaraj does not
close the doors of learning from others, but it requires confidence in one's own potential and decisions.
Gandhi thought of Swaraj as a system in which all people will have a natural affinity with their country
and they will readily collaborate in the task of nation-building.

Swaraj or self-government rules out people's dependence on government. This applies even to their
own government. Thus, Gandhi wrote in Young India (1925):

Self-government means continuous effort to be independent of government control, whether it is foreign

government or whether it is national. Swaraj government will be a sorry affair if people look up to it for
the regulation of every detail of life

Gandhi's concept of Swaraj also under exemplifies his vision of a true democracy. Under this system,
people will not merely have the right to elect the representatives, but they will become capable of
checking any abuse of authority. As Gandhi wrote in Young India (1925):

Real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a the few but acquisition of the capacity by
all to resist authority when it is abused. In other words, Swaraj is to be obtained by educating of the
masses to a sense their capacity to regulate and control authority.

For Gandhi, the idea of Swaraj was not limited to the political goal of securing independence from
foreign yoke. It also implied moral of the regeneration individual himself-the process of 'self-control',
'self-discipline' and self-purification' which must continue even after theindependence.As Gandhi
himself observed:

I am not interested in freeing India merely from the English yoke. I am bent upon freeing India from any
yoke whatsoever. I have no desire to exchange "king log for king stork". Hence for me the movement of
Swaraj is a movement of self-purification

Gandhi sought to demonstrate that individual self-government, i.e. self-control or self-mastery, was as
important as political self-government itself. Thus he Wrote in his Autobiography:

Self-government depends entirely upon our own internal strength, upon our ability to fight against the
heaviest odds. Indeed, self-government which does not require that continuous striving to attain it and to
sustain it, is not worth the name. I have therefore endeavoured to show both in word and deed that
political self-government that is self-government for a large number of men and women-is no better than
individual self-government, and therefore, it is to be attained by precisely the same means that are
required for individual self-government or self-rule.

As a votary of purity of means as well as ends, Gandhi tried to assert that we must rely on non-violence
or Ahimsa for the attainment of political self government as well as individual self-government.

Conclusion

Gandhi elaborately dwells on the principle of non-violence or Ahimsa as the way to transform individual
character and also as the guiding principle of political struggle. He demonstrates the superiority of non-
violence over violence at least in the majority of the cases'. He asserts that the force of love and piety is
infinitely greater than the force of arms. The principle of non-violence (Ahimsa) is founded on soul-force
(atmabal) while violence was founded on body-force (sharirbal). The qualities of soul-force are akin to
love-force (prembal), compassion-force (dayabal), the force acquired by self-suffering (tapobal) and
moral force (nitibal). All these forces become operative when mind is able to control itself and overcome
the passions. An individual endowed with these forces would be naturally inclined to adopt the
technique of non-violent resistance (Satyagraha) as his method of political struggle.
Q. Examine Gandhi’s views on Satyagraha.

- Satyagraha refers to the Gandhian technique of fighting against injustice. This nonviolent technique of
protest was introduced by Gandhi during his sojourn in South Africa (1893-1914) in the course of
fighting against injustice perpetrated by the then Government of South Africa on the resident Indians
and other non-white people.

The term "Satyagraha' was formed by joining two Sanskrit words "Satya (the truth) and "Agraha'
(insistence on or adherence to). So literally 'Satyagraha' means insistence on truth or adherence to
truth. In Hind Swaraj (1910), Gandhi defined Satyagraha as "a method of securing rights by personal
suffering: it is the reverse of resistance by arms.

This principle could be applied at individual as well as political level. At individual level, it would lead to
moral uplift of the individual (that is the self-rule gained through the control of passions like lust, anger,
greed, delusion and arrogance, etc). At political level Satyagraha can be used to attain Swaraj (that is the
national independence or independence from foreign rule), along with that it can also be used for
fighting against any form of injustice whether it is perpetrated by a tyrannical ruler or by tyrannical
social practices.

Satyagraha implies a para-legal method of registering a peaceful protest against the laws, the customs
and the practices which one finds contrary to his conscience. Gandhi believed in arousing the conscience
of the evil-doer; so he endorsed this motto: "Hate the sin, and not the sinner". Satyagrahi believes in
entering into a dialogue with his opponent for arriving at the mutually acceptable solution. It also has a
salutary effect on the onlookers who learn to appreciate the merits and demerits of the respective
claims of the conflicting parties. They also contribute to creating the climate of peaceful resolution of
the conflict.

The merit of Gandhian method of Satyagraha lies in introducing a new method of conflict-resolution
which was found worth trying in many parts of the world. We may not accept it as the sole method of
fighting against injustice, as Gandhi claimed, but it undoubtedly offers an important alternative to the
hitherto known methods.

Non cooperation movement

When Gandhiji lost all hopes of getting treated fairly by the government he decided to launch non-
cooperation movement by which he tried to withdraw Countries Corporation from government and
hoped to get support from Muslims who had become anti British and asked Hindus to support Muslims.
in this movement they decided to boycott schools, colleges and courts he and Ali Brothers toured India
to explain significance of this movement. In a special session of Congress which was convened in 1920 at
Calcutta approved and adopted policy of progressive nonviolent non-cooperation introduced by Gandhiji
until the wrongs are righted and swaraj is established.

Programme of non-cooperation movement

The programme and policies adopted under non-cooperation movement were:

 1. Boycott of foreign goods and use of swadeshi- Congress workers and weaver's class were
encouraged to spin yarn and weave clothes.
2. Surrender of titles and honorary offices and resignation of members occupying nominated seats
in local bodies.
3. Refusal to attend official durbars.
4. Gradual boycott of British courts by lawyers and litigants.
5. Boycott of government and state aided schools.
6. boycott of elections to the new councils and refusal by voters to vote at the elections.
7. Refusal by soldiers, clerks and working people to serve in Mesopotamia.

In brief the non-corporation movement was aimed at boycotting all the government offices and
institutions.

Besides boycotting the government bodies and institutions they established their own educational
institutions and panchayat bodies as a substitute to British educational institutions and British courts.

Progress of non-cooperation movement

People responded to this moment with great enthusiasm Gandhi had mobilised the public opinion
across the nation. They asked students not to attend state aided schools and take admission in national
schools and therefore number of new schools came into existence like Aligarh Muslim University,
JamiaMilia, Bihar Vidyapeeth, Kashi Vidyapeeth etc. Jamnalal Bajaj set apart sum of ₹1,00,000 to
support lawyers who had given up practice in their support towards this movement.

Civil Disobedience Movement

Circumstances leading to civil disobedience: -It was during that time when the patience of common
masses reached to the breaking point. The intellectual class of country realised that dialogue with the
Britishers has become ineffective. They felt that there is a need to use strong language against the
Britishers. The Nehru report was already rejected by the Britishers. There was a acute depression India
was facing. Before taking any extreme step Gandhiji made 11-point demand which was an offer to
British government, but the Britishers turned it into deaf ears. The peasants of Bardoli in 1928 had
already carried out no tax campaign under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. So Gandhiji decided to adopt it on
larger scale.

The historic Dandi March

Gandhiji’s moves were very well planned. He selected some of his good ashram mates to give them
training in satyagraha. Enhancement of taxes on salt gave Gandhi and opportunity to launch
satyagraha.He launched satyagraha on 12th March 1930 accompanied by band of 79 trained workers,
wherein he marched from Sabarmati to seashore in 24 days.He was cheered by his admirers on the
way,this generated patriotic sentiment among the people. on 6th April 1930 they started satyagraha by
picking up the salt.
Q. Explain Nehru’s political ideas.

- For evaluating the role of Nehru in building socialist movement in India, it is essential to know his
relationship and attitude towards the Indian Communists. Nehru's attitude towards Communism could
be put thus: while he did not accept all the fundamentals of Marxism, he did believe that there were
class antagonisms and exploitation of the workers and peasants by the property owners in a capitalist
society. He also accepted that social organization on socialist principles was better than the exploitative
capitalist social order

Nehru was influenced by Marx's scientific method, and later on came to admire the Russian system of
economic planning. At an intellectual level, both Marx and Russian experiment impressed Nehru. In a
letter to his daughter Nehru wrote: The second wonder that the Soviet performed was to transform
great parts of this area out of all recognition by prodigious schemes of planning. There is no instance in
recorded history of such rapid advance of a people. The most notable advances have been in education
and in industry. By vast Five- Year Plan the industrialization of Russia has been pushed on at a feverish
pace and enormous factories have been set up.

Nehru with all his admiration for Soviet planning did not accept the Communist way for his country, The
reasons were his background, personality make-up, impact of Gandhian philosophy of means and his
abhorrence to violence. Nehru was essentially a democrat and a liberal. Nehru believed that he himself
was making an attempt to adapt this western concept of socialism to the Indian context. Nehru's mind
was working in becoming a theoretician of something like 'Indian Socialism.

To understand Nehru's concept of Socialism, it is essential to note that Nehru's political education
started quite late. And the other fact clearly connected with this is that he was exposed to different
kinds of influences i.e. Marxism, Russian Revolution and Gandhi simultaneously. The impact of these two
facts was that Nehru tried throughout to reconcile the scientific aspects of socialism with the Gandhian
beliefs of 'importance of means' etc.

Though he was 'vaguely attracted to the Fabians and Socialistic ideas during his college days in England,
his political consciousness was really stirred when he came into close contact with the agrarian
problems of the United Provinces in India in 1920-21. "In 1920 I was totally ignorant", he says, "of labour
conditions in factories or fields, and my political outlook was entirely bourgeoise". This confrontation
with downtrodden, and his visit to Soviet Russia in 1927 convinced him of the merits of Socialist
philosophy, and he undertook the task of converting Congressmen to socialism

He drew the attention of the Congress to adopt an agrarian policy to improve the conditions of the poor
peasantry. He pleaded for "a great change in the land laws and the basis of the present system of land
tenure." He argued that "this semi-feudal system is out of date and is great hindrance to production and
general progress." He demanded the creation of a new system of "peasant proprietorship" and said that
the "demands for radical reforms in rent and revenue and the abolition of feudal levies have been made
from most of the provinces.
After all the Congress was always under the influence of property owners - whether landed or industrial.
The industrialists supported Gandhian leadership of the Congress, which was based on class harmony,
capitalists' trusteeship of property and according to which the "capitalists are fathers and workers are
children." To them this philosophy was a defence against the threat of class struggle posed by the
working-class. Hence for the industrialists, Congress was a 'safety valve' and Nehru seemed to them a
great threat.

Nehru was essentially a democrat of the western liberal category. This was due to the impact of his early
education in England. He accepted the essentials of Marxism and appreciated Soviet Russia and its
system of economic planning but under Gandhian impact did not accept Communist methods, and even
gave secondary position to the concept of class- struggle.

After independence

When the Planning Commission was set up in 1950 no strategy of planning was given to it. As a result,
the First Plan became merely a summary statement of all the projects that had already been taken on
hand. There was no clear statement even of the broad philosophy of planned development. True,
consistent with socialism, the social overheads and some basic industries like steel, etc, were to be
developed by the State; but in the Indian situation this task even in a capitalist economy would have
devolved on the State in practice. Missing in the Plan was the vital statement of the actual measures to
be taken for economic development and for attaining the socialist objective.

Any social or economic structure that failed to take advantage of science and technology was repugnant
to him. If men can produce more, earn more and lead a richer life through the application of science and
technology, why should they not do so? Poverty to him was an evil and however much he might detest
vulgar ostentation or excessive indulgence, Nehru never accepted Gandhi's principle of restraining
wants, nor did he share Gandhi's vision of self-sufficient village republics.
Q. Explain Nehru’s concept of secularism.

- His ideas about secularism were born in his childhood when he experienced being nurtured in a secular
ambience. His resident teacher was Ferdinand T. Brooks, a theosophist; interactions with Annie Besant
and Munshi Mubarak Ali, a Munshi of his father, and living with Jews in Harrow left a deep impact on
him and at the initial level removed many religious dogmas from his mind. The exposure to rich English
philosophical thoughts played an important role in his life but greater was the influence of Buddhism
which dissolved the feeling of discrimination. The birth of Buddhism is traced to a reaction against the
restricted nature of Hinduism. Nehru learnt a lot from it.

Nehru's greatest contribution to India and to the world should be the part he played in the building up
of an India in which all could live together irrespective of race, religion, colour, or caste. To appreciate
the importance of this achievement one has to look into the actual circumstances in which Nehru
operated.

Nehru was aware about the historical past of India. He was basically a historian and convinced that India
was a plural society, not a country with only one religious affiliation. Hinduism was responded to by
Buddhism and Jainism in ancient times when new social forces had emerged. For him, the advent of
Christianity and Islam was as significant as the arrival of Zoroastrianism in the country. He discovered
that people from different religions had shared memories which were not at odds with each other. The
war of independence in 1857 was its reflection when Hindus and Muslims had fought together. Nehru
had discerned this main element of the shared memory of Indian culture, and he attempted to build an
edifice of secularism on it.

When he entered political life, he applied his knowledge of history to infer that the communal forces
received wide support from the political authorities. He opposed British rule on this ground deducing
that the birth of communalism was due to multiple factors but British rule was a major contributor. In
later years this thought matured substantially. He said that a functional government structure must
encourage and sustain religious diversity. India is a country with multiple religions; hence the
government can never be biased towards any specific religion. Therefore, religion had no place in
politics. On this point he comes close to Machiavelli who advocated separation of politics from religion.
Here Nehru differed from Gandhi for whom spiritualisation of politics was a major objective of political
life. Though both had respect for all the religions, Nehru and Gandhi were true secularists but differed
on the application of religion in political life.

Nehru was a rationalist knowing well that human values were superior to religious orthodoxies. His
conflict with several people on religious show-offs suggested that he was absolutely against any form of
ritualism, religious superstitions and unscientific metaphysical approach to life. His secular credentials
were based upon his rational humanistic attitude towards life, and this life was more important than the
one after death. His attention was riveted to betterment of life in this age, not the age about which we
are in the dark. This idea was probably shaped by his inclination towards Buddhism in which the concept
of God is not recognised. Humanism is real religion and serving the downtrodden the greatest worship,
Nehru embodied and practised this in full measure.
His emphasis on the development of scientific temperament is a great contribution to India because it
initiated the fight against religious obscurantism and superstition which the whole country was steeped
in. For this reason Nehru can be characterised as a person carrying forward the tradition of the great
social reformer, Raja Rammohan Roy; both played a crucial role in the elimination of social orthodoxies.

Secularism is also related to the other philosophical pillars of the human civilisation. These are the
universal values of equality and liberty. He knew that no secular order can be sustained unless people
from all streams of religious life enjoy equality and liberty of the highest form. This thought was
manifest in his Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly.

Nehru applied secularism in the development of the human spirit and nation. He never used religion for
votes. He articulated the humanistic values inherent in religious equality. His secular ideas flow from the
great Indian tradition; hence those are not anti-religion but receive sustenance from humanism and
universal ethics.

In contemporary India his ideas on secularism are of utmost relevance when new clouds of fears,
apprehensions and uncertainties are gathering over the nation’s social horizon.
Q. Why is Ambedkar called as the Father of the Indian Constitution?

- In consonance with his commitment to social justice, Ambedkar stood for a State which guaranteed
protection against persecution of one community by another besides protecting against internal
disturbances, violences and disorder in any part of its territory. Dr.Ambedkar sought to strengthen
democracy in India by adherence to the constitutional method. The weapons of civil disobedience, non-
cooperation and satyagraha adopted during India's struggle for independence had to be abandoned
after the attainment of freedom and the establishment of a democratic order. Ambedkar asserted that if
democracy were to be maintained in the country three things must be done:

(a) We must hold fast to the constitutional method of achieving our social and economic objectives
unless the departure from this method became absolutely essential and inevitable;

(b) We must not lay our liberty at the feet of great men for no man could be grateful at the cost of his
honour; no woman could be grateful at the cost of her chastity; and no nation could be grateful at the
cost of its independence, and finally,

(c) We must convert our political democracy into social democracy, i.e. a way of life which recognized
liberty, equality and principles.

Dr.Ambedkar lamented that democracy in this country was in tatters not because the bulk of our voters
were illiterate but because the leadership had no faith in the rule of law or the democratic procedure.
The bureaucracy, political executive, the Parliament and the State legislatures had scant regard for the
law in whose name they existed and functioned. During the course of constitution-making Ambedkar
threw his weight on the side of the unitary principle in the interest of the unity and integrity of the
nation. In the face of a lot of sentimental, revivalist talk of the glories of the Panchayat Raj, he retorted:
"These village republics have been the ruination of India. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den
of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the draft constitution has discarded
the village and adopted the individual as the unit.

Babasaheb Ambedkar's legal expertise and knowledge of the Constitution of different countries was very
helpful in the framing of the constitution. He became chairman of the Drafting Committee of the
Constituent Assembly and played an important role in framing the Indian Constitution.

Among others, his most important contributions were in areas of fundamental rights, strong central
government and protection of minorities.

Article 32 guarantees judicial protection to the Fundamental Rights which makes them meaningful. For
him, Article 32 was the most important article of the constitution and thus, he referred to it "soul of the
Constitution and very heart of it".

He supported a strong central government. He was afraid that Casteism is more powerful at the local
and provincial levels, and the government at this level might not protect the interest of lower caste
under pressure of upper caste. Since the National government is less influenced by these pressures, they
will ensure protection to lower caste.
He was also afraid that the minority which is the most vulnerable group in the nation may convert into
political minorities too. So democratic rule of 'One man one vote' is not sufficient and the minority
should be guaranteed a share in power. He was against 'Majoritarianism Syndrome' and provided many
safeguards in the Constitution for the minorities.

Indian constitution is the lengthiest constitution in the world because various administrative details have
been included. Babasaheb defended it saying that we have created a democratic political structure in a
traditional society. If all details are not included, future leaders may misuse the Constitution without
technically violating it. Such safeguards are necessary. This shows that he was aware of the practical
difficulties which India will face once the Constitution would have been implemented.

Constitutional Morality

In Babasaheb Ambedkar’s perspective, Constitutional morality would mean effective coordination

between conflicting interests of different people and administrative cooperation.

It will help to resolve the conflict amicably without any confrontation amongst the various groups
working for the realization of their ends at any cost.

According to him, for India, where society is divided on the basis of caste, religion, language, and other
factors, a common moral compass is needed, and the Constitution can play the role of that compass.
Q. Why is Ambedkar called as a Messiah of the Dalits?

- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar diagnosed the root cause of social injustice in India in the widespread practice of
untouchability in Hindu society. This was the product of age-old caste system which was designed to
protect the interests of high castes at the expense of the lowest caste. While Mahatma Gandhi (1869-
1948) also dedicated his life to the eradication of untouchability in India, Ambedkar differed from him in
regard to the method of achieving this objective. Gandhi coined the word Harijans' (Children of God) to
describe the 'untouchables' in order to underline the value of their service to humanity and to develop a
soft corner for them in the high castes. However, Ambedkar insisted on calling them 'Untouchables',
"the Depressed Classes' (Dalits) or "the Scheduled Castes' to focus on their inherited social plight.

Dr.Ambedkar dubbed the practice of untouchability a kind of slavery with no responsibility for feeding
the slaves. While Gandhji wanted a peaceful and gradual abolition of untouchability through precept
and example, Dr.Ambedkar advocated the more radical solution through the annihilation of caste itself
as an institution. In his powerful style of reasoning he asserted: The root of untouchability is the caste
system; the root of the caste system is religion attached to 'varna' and 'ashrama' and the root of
"varnashrama is Brahminical religion; and the root of Brahminical religion is authoritarianism or political
power.

Analysing the impact of caste system on Hindu society, Dr.Ambedkar pointed out that caste does not
result in economic efficiency; caste cannot and has not improved the race. On the contrary, the caste
system has completely disorganized and demoralized the Hindus. Worse still, the effect of caste on the
ethos of the Hindus was simply deplorable. It made them caste-bound. It killed public spirit and charity.
Commenting on the disastrous consequences of the caste system on the Hindu society, Ambedkar
argued:

A Hindu's public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his
caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy to
the deserving; there is no appreciation of the meritorious; there is no charity to the needy .

If India was to become a modern nation, there was no way to accomplish this task except through the
annihilation of caste. Thus Ambedkar observed:

You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build
up a morality. Anything that you will build on foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.
In order to bring about a radical change in Hindu social order and to abolish the caste system, Ambedkar
recommended inter-caste dining, inter-caste marriage, a scientific and a rational attitude towards
religion. He wanted to replace the formal religion by the true religion, to replace the 'Religion of Rules'
by the Religion of Principles.

Dr.Ambedkar exhorted the untouchables to make sincere efforts for their own amelioration and also
wanted the Government to play a positive role in this process. In short, he recommended four important
steps in this direction:
a) The untouchables should try to restore their self-respect and pride. They should become educated
and professionally qualified. They should shed their inferiority complex; migrate to larger towns and
cities Where professional status instead of inborn status is largely respected, take up modern
professions and transform themselves to fit into the modern civilization.

b) The untouchables should be represented at all levels of Government by their own representatives.
Ambedkar was convinced that the leadership of the untouchables should emerge from the untouchables
themselves,

c) The Government should take responsibility for the welfare of its entire people, creating special rights
for those to whom society had denied educational and occupational opportunities. The untouchables
should have recourse to legal channels for the protection of their rights; and finally

(d) All forms of caste must be abolished. The functions of the Brahmins as priests on various ceremonies
should be performed by trained persons from any caste, under State supervision. This would amount
not only to the abolition of traditional discrimination between high and low castes but make the caste
system itself redundant. Functions of each member of society will then be redefined on a rational basis,
corresponding to each individual's qualifications and training.

In a nutshell, Dr.Ambedkar sought to establish social justice by replacing the caste system by a rational
and functional social organization.

Babasaheb had devoted his life to remove untouchability. He believed that the progress of the nation
would not be realized without the removal of untouchability, which means the abolition of the caste
system in totality. He studied Hindu philosophical traditions and made a critical assessment of them.

For him, untouchability is the slavery of the entire Hindu society. While Untouchables are enslaved by
Caste Hindus, Caste Hindus themselves live under slavery of religious sculptures. So the emancipation of
the untouchables leads to the emancipation of the whole Hindu society.
Q. Discuss Vivekananda’s ideas on Hinduism as a Universal Religion.

- Swami Vivekananda’s contribution in the domain of religion was immeasurable. He rejuvenated

Hinduism and Vedanta as his religion. He found that, in Hinduism, which was, to him the Advaita
Vedanta Philosophy of religion, the approach to the highest truth was psychological. According to him,
Each religion expresses the highest truth in its own way. Here we do not get the truth from error but
from truth to truth. We reach higher truth from lower truth. So, there is no need for fanatical quarrel
over religion. The harmony of all religions was the central theme of his teachings.

According to Swamiji, real religion is the realization of the Divine within by every soul. This divinity is
latent within each one of us and the religious practices only bring it to our conscious level. When one
has realized one’s Divinity as a direct experience one has no fear of anything not even death itself. He
must realise this divinity in his thought and selfless actions. Religion is not the matter of imagination; we
must apply religion to our practical world and life.

Though he was proud to belong to Hindu religion, he accepted all religions as true. This is his
universalism of religions. So we see his address on Hinduism on 19th September 1893 at the same place
he presented his idea of Universal religion. The one watch word for universal religion is acceptance.
Acceptance is not just tolerance. Tolerance is negative in its import. It implies that something is being
allowed in spite of its being wrong. Swamiji recommends positive acceptance.

‘Universal Religion’ as suggested by Swami Vivekananda, is not a new addition to the existing list of
known religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hebraism, Hinduism, Islam, Laninism,
Sikhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism. It is neither a separate religion nor an alternative caption suggested
for any particular religion. Normally one may expect that as a Hindu and religious preacher he has
glorified his own religion by claiming it to be a universal religion. But it is clear that while talking about
universal religion Swamiji’s intention has not been concentrated in glorifying his own religion, rather the
emphasis seems to have been concentrated the universality aspect of any religion so that bad effects of
the religiosities can be avoided.

Universal religion must open its gates, to every individual. It must admit that nobody is born with this or
that religion, whether he takes to one religion or the other must ultimately be left to his inner likes and
choice. In this sense by individualizing religion we really universalize it. The universal religion must
honour to every religious sect. A really universal religion must be able to give satisfaction and comfort to
every religious sect. So, universal religion has a broader perspective.

Universal Religion is a search for power to overcome the evil side of life even more than its concern for
understanding what life as its centre or depth means. It is all comprehensive. It pleads for unity of
humanity. Universal religion is basis for universal peace and co-existence. It brings up a sense of socio-
cultural relation in the world; and keeps the humanitarian service for living and leading a peaceful co-
existence in the human society of the world.

A religion is universal religion when it is universally accepted by all. It is above the caste, creed, sex and
nationality. Swamiji, wants to establish a religion that will be equally acceptable to all minds. It must be
equally philosophic, equally emotional, equally mystic and equally conducive to action. This combination
will be the ideal of the nearest approach to a universal religion to become harmoniously balanced in all
these four directions in his ideal of religion. And this religion is attained by Yoga or union with God.
‘Yoga’ means “Yoke” to join, that is, to join the soul of man with the supreme soul or God. Swamiji
wanted a total development of all the four Yogas. Hence he advocated a combination of all the four
Yogas. The ultimate goal of each Yoga is the same that is realization of the supreme self. Each of four
Yogas represents the development of one particular mental faculty that is reason, emotion or will.

Universal religion is a discovery of universality in all religion. Swamiji thinks of the possibility of bringing
together all religions of the world under one umbrella. The dream of Vivekananda was to propagate a
universal religion based on the spiritual synthesis. The aim of the universal religion of Swami
Vivekananda is to glorify the universe with peace and harmony by overcoming the apparent
contradictions and fictitious differences among the different religious faiths.

Vivekananda is an Advaitavadin. His philosophy of Universal Religion teaches us that to love God and
realized the Ever-living God and feel that “All are one” is the true spiritual mark of understanding
religion. It regulates the human life. If there is no inner life there is no religion either. Religion is a matter
of the inner life. Religion intervenes human conduct.
Q. Explain Kautilya’s six principles of Foreign Policy.

- Kautilya proposed six principals of foreign policy for the successful conduct of foreign policy by an
ambitious Kingdom or state. The contemporary strategic thinking in India has been influenced by these
principals whose detail is given below.

1) Sandhi: (Policy of Peace for Co-Existence) Sandhi or policy of peace for co-existence is a principal of
foreign policy advisable for kingdoms or states which have to deal with more powerful states. Due to the
difference of material national economic, political and military power, the weak state cannot fight with
the more powerful country. Therefore, it must enter into an agreement through skilful and swift
diplomacy in order to avert war with the powerful state. The treaty-based peace must be conditioned on
equal terms so that the strategic autonomy of peacemaking state must not be compromised.

2) Vigraha: (Policy of Hostility) Kautilya advocates for hostilities in order to further material interest if
one state is stronger than its enemy. He considered war an instrument of policy similarly like Clausewitz
proposed war as a continuation of policy. The doctrine of war has been further classified into offensive
war and defensive war. Defensive war is proposed when the enemy has launched an offensive and the
defending state has enough capability to thwart aggression of the enemy.

The doctrine of offensive war is based on deception and intelligence that the enemy is engaged in
another war with another state or internally. The internally weaker enemy is the best prey for offensive
war in order to further material interests of the state. However, Kautilya was very keen about profit and
loss in the war. Therefore, offensive war or policy of hostility will cause more human and material
damage to the aggressor.

3) Asana: (Policy of Preparedness for War) If the ambitious or central state is weak compared to its
enemies or neighbours than the best policy option for the ambitious state is to remain pacifist but
prepare for war. Pacifist peace is a recess from the war in the views of Kautilya. Therefore, an ambitious
state must render its economic resources for military modernization and preparedness of its armed
forces to defend its overstretched economic interests.

During this period of preparedness for war, an ambitious state must create instability and insurgencies
in the enemy state through spying, sedition and political chaos by using special agents. These
circumstances will weak the enemy and compel it to accept the conditions as suit the ambitious state
and its interest. The ambitious state may go for war and marching with that state after creating these
circumstances.

4) Yana: (Policy of Marching/Direct war) Yana or Policy of marching and direct war is a suggestive policy
for the ambitious state which has greater military strength compared to an enemy state. Open war and
expedition is a best foreign policy option for the ambitious state if it has surety that it has greater
military strength compared to its enemy. Kautilya also proposes an alliance in war if it suits the
ambitious state. However, he argued that dividends of alliance based war will be distributed between
and among allies as allies enter into alliance only if it provides material benefit to all of them.
5) Sansraya: (Policy of Seeking Alliances) Kautilya has outlined a foreign policy option of seeking alliances
for weak states with strong states in order to secure their foreign policy interests amidst chaotic
circumstances. The purpose of these alliances will be to gain security assurance and defence
cooperation in order to mitigate security threats.

6) Dvaidhibhava: (Policy of Double Dealing) The policy of double-dealing is based on psychological

damage, deception and intelligence based exploitation of enemy state. The king or state seeks this
policy option as a choice against an equal power enemy state or the weaker state which is supported by
great power.

Therefore, the aim of this policy is burden sharing or seeking a partner for war who becomes ready to
bear the cost of war along with war waging state. It is an act of balancing against your enemy by the
support of other state but the intention behind the action of balancing state is buck-passing or war
burden sharing with contributing state. This tradition of double-dealing is very relevant in the history of
international relations. It means that the war waging state must use the resources of another state in
order to defeat its own enemy.
Q. Examine Kautilya’s Theory of elements of State.

- Kautilyas Arthashastra is a unique treatise on the art of statecraft or governance, wherein every single
aspect of human life is subject to the jurisdiction of the state. His detailed work clearly laid down an
organizational set-up, and there was a clear-cut division of ethics and politics. However, he was of the
opinion that politics devoid of ethics is dangerous to the prosperity and security of the entire kingdom.

In all matters of state, dharma should be the guiding factor. In many ways, Kautilya was compared to
Machiavelli in certain matters of statecraft.

The following is a brief explanation of various issues that are part of the entire state machinery:

The Saptanga Theory:

According to Kautilya, a state has seven elements or constituents, namely, Swamin— the King, Amatya—
the Minister, Janapada—the Land, and the People, Durga—the Fortress, Kosha—the Treasury, Danda—
the Army, Mitra—the Allies.

This entire set-up of the kingdom was described as Saptanga theory in ancient India.

Swamin : The Swamin refers to the king, regarded as the indispensable, integral and inseparable part of
the state in ancient India. King in all cases belonged to the noble and royal family who possessed
qualities of both head and heart. It is the first and the most important element. He should be a native of
the soil and born in a noble family. He should be brave and well learned. He makes all the important
appointments and supervises the government. He has to be virtuous and should treat his subjects like
his own children. Kautilya has given extensive powers to the monarch but those powers are meant for
the welfare of them subjects. In the welfare and happiness of his subjects, lies his own happiness.

Amatya: Amatya refers to the council of ministers as well as the supporting officials and subordinate
staffs. It is their responsibility to ensure that the government runs smoothly. They are meant for
assisting the monarch in day to day affairs of the state. Amatya gives suggestions to king, collects taxes,
develops new villages and cities, ensures defense of the state and all other tasks as assigned by the king.

Janpada: It refers to territory and people of the state. The territory of the state should be fertile and
should have abundance of forest, rivers, mountains, minerals, wild life etc. It should have have good
climate. The People should be loyal to their king, hard working, disciplined, religious, ready to fight for
their motherland, should pay taxes regularly and happily.

Durga: The term ‘Durga’ in the ancient India means fort, which is considered an extremely important
element. Usually, forts were constructed on the borders of the territory. Kautilya, in fact, divided these
forts into water, hill, desert and forest forts⁶. The state should have sufficient number of forts across its
territory at strategic locations for ensuring defense against foreign invasions. They garrison soldiers,
store food grains for emergency and also serve as a hideout for the king when his life in danger.
Kosha: The fifth element is Kosha or the treasury. Kautilya opined that a king must amass wealth to
promote the welfare of the people and also maintain his army. Finance is life blood of any state without
which it is almost impossible to run it. Money is needed for paying salaries, building new infrastructure,
etc. The treasury should be full of money and valuable metals and gems. It can be increased through
taxation and plundering enemy states in war.

Danda: refers to the armed forces to protect the state from aggressions and maintain law and order
within the state. Kautilya suggested that it is the responsibility of the king to see that his army is content
with its role in the state. The state should have a regular, large, disciplined and well trained military. It is
crucial for the security of the state. The soldiers should be recruited from those families which are
traditionally associated with military. The soldiers should paid well and their families should be taken
care of in most suitable way. Proper training and equipment should be made available. Well fed and well
trained soldiers can win any battle. The king should take care of the soldiers and the soldiers will be
ready to sacrifice even their life for him.

Mitra: Finally, Mitra refers to a friend or allies. A king must have certain dependable friends who help
him in all calamities. A king’s immediate neighbour becomes an enemy and an enemy’s enemy becomes
a friend of the king. The monarch should maintain friendly relationship with traditional friends of his
forefathers. He should also make new friendships. He should send gifts and other pleasantries for his
friends. They should be helped in times of emergency. They should be loyal. Friends add to the power of
the state. They are also important from foreign trade view point.

The Saptanga theory was, in fact, famous all through the ancient period. The state was regarded as a
physical organism and its elements as the good part of the body. It was stated that king was considered
the head, ministers as the eyes, and treasury as the face, army as the mind, fort as the hands and
country as a whole as the legs of the human body.
Q. Explain Kautilya’s Theory of Danda.

- Danda:

The term Danda is derived from the words Dam and Dand, which refer to tame, subdue, to conquer or
to restrain. This term also means a stick. Danda, in fact, is one of the elements of a state. The main
reason for the institution of Danda is to bring about discipline in the lives of human beings who by
nature are evil and corrupt. It is only the king who can protect the entire mankind and for this
protection, the king uses Danda as a means or as an instrument.

In the ancient Indian political system, it was the responsibility of the king to maintain Dharma by means
of Danda. It was widely believed that it is only through fear of punishment that the mankind can be
made more disciplined. It is this punishment that keeps a check on their actions consciously or
subconsciously.

However, this punishment should be inflicted only when necessary after much consideration. Otherwise,
the concept of Danda is lost. Further, ancient Indian thinkers were of the opinion that Danda should not
be used as per the whims and fancies of the rulers, but only when there is presence of any anti-social
elements in the society.

They further stated that Danda is a code given to the humanity by God to follow a righteous life. This
code should bind Danda against his subjects for their wrongdoings. Even the people can collectively take
an action against the king if he commits any wrong.

NATURE OF DANDANITI

Dandaniti denotes the art of using force to control the errant elements in society. Danda, i.e. the rod as
a symbol of force or state power is mentioned in the old texts like Manusmriti, the work of Ushnas and
Mahabharata, but Kautilya has given elaborate exposition of Dandaniti. Kautilya made a clear distinction
between religion and politics and nowhere does he evaluate political problems in terms of religious
precepts. While recognizing the vital importance of religion in social life, he was bold enough to assert
that Dandaniti should form the basis of Purushartha (the effort to achieve the principal objects of
human life). He stressed the value of human endeavor in securing the best in his life. He contended that
history was no longer the result of the vengeance or jealousy of superhuman powers but the expression
of human ingenuity. He asserted that things should not be allowed to be governed by chance.

Kautilya identified four purposes of Dandaniti: (a) Acquisition of the unacquired: (b) Preservation of the
acquired; (c) Augmentation of the preserved; and (d) Fair distribution of the augmented.

Only a strong and disciplined prince could fully achieve these purposes. Politically, Kautilya was the
supporter of a strong monarchy and stable imperialist state. His state was to be paternal in character
and benevolent in spirit. The main function of the state was to foster the material and spiritual progress.
It was to regulate all branches of human life. It was to maintain the respective privileges of all and to
protect them from the tyranny of more powerful sections. Excessive use would distress the people and
light usage of the same will lose its importance. Through Dandaneethi, it becomes easier to bring about
proper progress and balanced system of social and economic needs. Kautilya regarded monarchy as the
best human institution and also as the custodian of the national resources and public rights.

In exalting polity as the supreme social institution, Kautilya went to the extent of claiming that of the
four Purusharthas (principal objects of human life), Artha (material prosperity which was fostered by the
state) was the most important. He assigned the duty of maintenance of Dharma (religious order) to the
king himself. Kama (sensual enjoyments) could be attained only under a congenial atmosphere to be
maintained by the state. And finally, Moksha (final liberation of soul) could be achieved only when the
first three objects have been accomplished. Thus, achievement of all the four principal objects of human
life was dependent on the proper functioning of the state. In a nutshell, Kautilya sought to replace the
primacy of religion prevailing in his times by advancing the claim of state sovereignty.
Q. Examine the ideas of Tilak on Swaraj and Swadeshi.

- Concept of Swaraj is the keynote of Tilak's philosophy. Tilak is often remembered for his famous saying:
"Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it." This statement was made by Tilak in a court while
addressing the judge. He was defending himself against the charge of inciting murder through his
newspaper article where he had quoted Gita which read:

"No blame could be attached to anyone who killed an oppressor without any thought of reward."

What is Swaraj? Literally, it means self-rule. Tilak largely used this term in the Sense of national
independence. Later Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), Father of the nation, sought to expand the scope of
this term so as to include 'self-discipline' at the individual level, and 'self-rule' at the national level. As
regards Tilak, he spelled out the twin objectives of Swadeshi and Swaraj as the guiding principles of the
national movement. Literally, Swadeshi meant (insistence on) the indigenous. For him, Swaraj or Home
Rule also meant the rule of and the rule for, the common people of India. However, he also had a
blueprint of an independent India in mind. For him, swaraj was also linked to swa-bhasha and swa-
bhusha, i.e. mother tongue and indigenous attire. Perhaps, he was the first national leader who
envisioned the formation of linguistic states.

Tilak started the Swadeshi movement (1905), which was not just about boycotting British goods, but his
larger objective was promoting indigenous entrepreneurship. Tilak wanted to promote manufacturing in
India. To that end, Tilak started collecting funds for a corpus, known as Paisa Fund. This can be termed
as reminiscent of the Make in India Program, in present times.

Tilak also set aside the argument that the British Government had made good arrangements for efficient
administration of the country. He forcefully argued:

Howsoever good the arrangement may be, it is made by others, not by the people themselves and
hence they cannot be expected to be satisfied with it because they themselves wish to have this power
in their own hands.This is the fundamental principle of Swaraj.

Tilak was not content with the appointment of Indians to the civil services; he wanted that all
responsible positions at decision-making level should be held by Indians/all political positions should be
filled through democratic elections. So Tilak was in favour of a democratic system under Swaraj. He
asserted that under Swaraj, the rule of bureaucracy would be replaced by the rule of the will of the
people. This rule will motivate people to cooperate willingly and vigorously in the task of nation-
building. Tilak was an extremist only in the sense that he insisted on taking a firm stand in pursuing the
goal of national independence. He did admire nationalist revolutionaries for their intense patriotism, but
did not advocate violence or indiscriminate destruction of property to paralyze the administration.

He favoured voluntary boycott and peaceful, passive resistance in his fight against injustice. It would also
not be fair to say that Tilak nationalism focused on the cause of Hindu It is true that he organized
Ganapati and Shivaji festivals which largely led to the mobilization of Hindus. But he never encouraged
alienation of Muslims or of any other Indian community. On the other hand he offered full support to
Indian Muslims, in 1920, in the Khilafat movement which demanded restoration of Khalifa in Turkey as
the head of Muslim religious establishment. In fact, Tilak was convinced that the Hindus' intelligence
combined with Muslims' chivalry would prove to be a potent threat to British bureaucracy, and force the
British rulers to quit India. In short, Tilak's philosophy of Swaraj played a prominent role in strengthening
the national and independence movement of India.
Q. Discuss thoughts of Tilak on Social Reform.

- Tilak has elaborated his philosophy of social change in various articles by him, contributed to the
Kesari." He was not opposed to social reform as such but was hostile to a total and immediate
programme of social revolution.

His principal aim was a nationalistic upsurge and hence he was opposed to creating confusion in the
mass mind by holding up before thorn divergent social philosophies. Tilak was a Conservative, Historicist
believing in the gradual evolution of the social consciousness. He accepted the need of social change
and reform but these be carried on under the leadership of men of eminent, moral and spiritual
character living as the embodiment of the Hindu way of life and not by mere intellectuals pouring the
vials of their worth on the contemporary society in newspapers. Hence it is clear that Tilaks hostile
attitudes to social reform were dictated by his conception of politics and culture.

The Age of Consent Act

For some time a movement was growing in the country for rising the age of consent for girls. B. M.
Malabari, a Parsi gentleman, was propagating in England for the introduction of social reforms in Hindu
society. His idea was to bring pressure on the Secretary of State for India, on the Viceroy to enact into
law some of his proposals. Some of the proposals of Malabari were as follows:

1) Cohabitation by a husband with his wife, under twelve years of age, should be made penal,

2) In case of infant-marriage, the wife should be entitled to cancel the marriage, if she liked, on attaining
majority.

3) Suits by husbands for the restitution of conjugal rights should not be allowed, and,

4) A widow should continue to hold her first husbands property even after her remarriage.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak opposed the age of consent bill, which increased the age of marriage for girls from
ten to twelve years old, but he was able to sign a circular that raised the age of marriage for girls to
sixteen years old and for boys to twenty years old.

TILAK AND CASTE SYSTEM

Tilak's attitude toward social change can best be gauged from his attitude toward the caste system. To
Tilak, caste provided the most enduring core of Indian society. "Caste distinctions” were originally
planned on the secular “Principle of division of labour” and were based on mutual interdependence
rather than on the modern practice of discrimination. At the Second Provincial Industrial Conference,
held at Poona in 1892, Tilak linked caste to the trade guilds of medieval Europe. Tilak emphasized the
traditional structure, not because he wished to defend or preserve it, but because it offered the most
viable means of modernization.
While he was prepared to work within the social fabric, and at a gradual tempo in harmony with his
society, Tilak remains something of a free spirit, ahead of his time who could be more liberal than the
social reformers.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak was opposed to intercaste marriages, especially those in which a woman from a
higher caste married a man from a lower caste.

Tilak and Female Education:

According to Tilak, education for women was a problem must amenable to reform, the question
generally being not whether but to what extent and in what manner to educate women. However
education for women was much debated. Higher education of the type offered to men was discouraged
for several reasons. The argument against teaching women medicine was base on women's allegedly
weak physique and intellect, and the supposedly determinately effect of the bodily strain of such
education on them, such as ‘de-sexing' and incapacity to bear children. The social reasons were that
since women's primary functions in life was to bear and raise children and manage household tasks,
formal education for them was unnecessary and wasted .

Tilak was of the opinion, "In view of the duties of men and women in our society, this kind of education
would not particularly benefit women, but its imposition by force would have detrimental results on
Society." But now a days we have great examples that women are working with men in various areas,
without any hindrance.

He did not accept that Hindu women should be educated in the modern world. He was more religious,
claiming that women were supposed to be homemakers who had to submit themselves to their
husbands and children's needs.
Q. Describe the political ideas and techniques of Aurobindo.

- Sri Aurobindo was an ardent nationalist. In his view, nationalism was not only a mission, a goal of life,
but an end to be pursued as vigorously as religion. For him Nationalism was not a mere political slogan
nor a mere intellectual idea but his first passion and religion.

Aurobindo has not only awakened his countrymen to their sacred duty at that Juncture, but also
imparted a new moral tone to the national movement, ultimately preparing the mind of the country for
the forthcoming social revolution. For him (Sri Aurobindo), India was no mere geographical entity, mere
physical and material land mass, no mere intellectual concept, but a goddess incarnate, a mighty mother
who for centuries has cradled and nourished children and who, at that time, was groaning under the
yoke of a foreigner oppressor, her pride shattered, her glory ground to dust."

Thus India as a nation was eulogized by Sri Aurobindo as the mother but a mother in chains, and the
primary duty of her sons was to win freedom for the Mother, to strive by every possible means to
liberate her from her shackles.

He believed that every nation on earth had a peculiar bent of its own. Its individuality which could not
be maintained, far less fostered under the domination of a foreign power representing a different
temperament of different genius. The temper of Anglo-Saxon culture was an antithesis of that of Indian
culture (both are totally opposite to each other). The Anglo-Saxon people were wedded to materialism
because they paid greatest importance to the immediate, practical and material gains while India's chief
characteristic was her spiritualism. Sri Aurobindo predicted that if India continued to remain a province
of British Empire, sharing its institutions and governed by its policy, her fate would be no better than
that of the ancient Greece with Roman domination.

Sri Aurobindo was convinced that imitation of Europe was not at all conducive India's regeneration. He,
therefore, exhorted the Indian people to uphold the Sanatan Dharma which was the essence of their
national personality. The Sanatan Dharma and Indian nationalism were therefore co-terminous. In his
own words: "I no longer say that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan
Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma, with it, it
moves and with it, it grows. When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines and if the
Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing then with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish. The Sanatan
Dharma is nationalism.”

Aurobindo's concept of nationalism as religion opened wider horizons for national movement. He felt
that the task before us was not mechanical but moral, not political but spiritual. The aim of the
nationalist movement was not confined to an alteration of the form of government-from a colonial rule
to self government-but it embraced a comprehensive programme of nation-building. Politics was a part
of this programme, but only a part: "We should devote ourselves neither to politics alone, nor to
theology or philosophy or literature or science by themselves, but to all of these-to our Dharma. The
realization of the spirituality of India could alone make the nation free and great.
Aurobindo, therefore, insisted that India's salvation did not lie in the enlargement of Legislative
Councils, introduction of elective principle, colonial self-government etc. His ideal of nationalism itself
could not accommodate the Moderates and their objective of Dominion Status for India. So Aurobindo
aimed at seizure of political power as a prelude to India's national regeneration. Once freedom from the
foreign yoke was achieved, all other steps in the direction of national regeneration-moral uplift;
industrial and social development and educational reconstruction-would be undertaken successfully.
National regeneration of India was, for Aurobindo, not the final goal; it was Stepping stone to universal
regeneration.
Q. Describe the political goals and techniques of Gokhale.

- GOKHALE’S CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

When Gokhale joined public life, India was socially in the grip of many evil practices, and politically
under the British rule. Under the prevailing conditions Gokhale proposed that the Indians should seek
liberation from the colonial rule as their long-term goal, but it could not be pursued as their immediate
goal. In his powerful speeches Gokhale argued that the Indians should get rid of their evil social practices
before seeking liberation from the foreign rule, otherwise a dominant class would establish its
supremacy over the masses in a new political set up.

He asserted that the bonds of caste and custom had bound us with fixed ways of thinking and living.
Women were also placed in a deplorable condition in our society. Mere change of government would
not secure freedom for the masses; it would hardly invigorate an enslaved nation. A free nation consists
of free individuals that are the individuals who are guided by an enlightened conscience and who are
not wedded to irrational dogmas and superstitions. In other words, national freedom movement should
begin as new life movement.

Our main difficulty in public life springs as much from reluctance or...from a constitutional incapacity of
our people to subordinate personal judgement to the common good - Gopal Krishna Gokhale

IDEA OF NATIONALISM

I am not a democrat. I don't believe in democracy. Believe in liberty and rights – Gopal Krishna Gokhale

Gokhale held that the goal of nationalism in India postulates the moral regeneration of the nation. A
true nationalist must work for moral uplift of the masses as well as for emancipation of the
downtrodden. Servants of India Society were founded by Gokhale in 1905, particularly to serve this
purpose. It aimed at securing self government for India on the lines of British dominions. Gokhale, like
other early Indian nationalists, hoped that British colonial rule would be instrumental bringing about
social reforms in India. So he wanted to have continuous dialogue with the British rulers. Gokhale
extended full support to the Swadeshi movement, but he did not approve of clubbing it with other
methods of boycott.

Swadeshi Movement is both a patriotic and an economic movement. The idea of Swadeshi is one of the
noblest conceptions that have ever stirred the hearts of humanity. But the movement on its material
side is an economic one to ensure a ready consumption of such articles as are produced in the country.
- Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1905)

Gokhale had immense faith in British liberalism, and trust in English conscience, yet British economic
policy was severely criticized by him, because it had resulted in multiplying poverty in India. The British
held laws of economics were responsible for this situation in India. So Gokhale argued that the
operation of laws of economics should be placed under human control in order to achieve human goals.
He made a scathing attack on the ruling bureaucracy for the partition of Bengal (1905). He wanted the
bureaucracy to foster the habits of self-government among Indians instead of focusing on efficient
administration of its policies.

CONCLUSION

Gokhale regarded politics as the art of the possible. He argued that a public activist should be conscious
about the goal of perfection, but he should try to achieve what is presently possible in that direction. He
may change his goal under the changing conditions while proceeding further in that direction. Gokhale
Insisted on the principles of moderation, reason and compromise. So he stood for the constitutional
method of agitation. It is important to note that Mahatma Gandhi adopted Gokhale's view on the moral
foundations of politics, and declared complete "Swaraj' as the goal of national movement.