PSIR Test Series & Crash Course - Target 2025

Module Answer - 7

Q1. Write approximately 150 words on each one of the following:

(a) Affirmative action

Answer - According to Andrew Heywood, Policies or programmes designed to benefit

disadvantaged minority groups by affording them special assistance are called Affirmative
Action.

Affirmative action means a policy initiative by the state for the welfare and development of
socially, economically, and educationally marginalised communities. Edward J. Kellough, in
the book Understanding Affirmative Action: Politics, Discrimination, and the Search for
Social Justice, defines social justice as a strategy to provide employment and educational
opportunities to those groups that suffer racial, ethnic, or gender-based discrimination. Thus,
affirmative action aims to remove the lack of health, education, or employment opportunities.
It provides redistributive justice by creating exceptional opportunities for disadvantaged
groups through various policies. Affirmative action includes policy initiatives by the state, such
as reservations in jobs in public institutions, and political representation for marginalised social
groups – SCs, STs, OBCs, and women.

Proponents argue that affirmative action corrects systemic disadvantages, enhances

diversity, and promotes social cohesion. Studies, like one from Harvard Business Review
(2016), suggest that diverse teams improve decision-making and financial performance.

Rawls’ "difference principle" supports affirmative action if it benefits the least advantaged
without violating basic liberties. It justifies policies that uplift marginalised groups to correct
historical inequities, provided they align with fair equality of opportunity.

Communitarians emphasise collective well-being and social cohesion, viewing affirmative

action as a way to strengthen community bonds.

However, most libertarians, like Milton Friedman, argue that affirmative action violates
individual autonomy by imposing group-based criteria.
Nozick opposes affirmative action, emphasising individual property rights and voluntary
transactions. He views preferential treatment as unjust interference with merit-based
outcomes, arguing that historical wrongs cannot justify present-day discrimination.

The theoretical perspectives on affirmative action reveal a complex interplay of ethical

principles, social goals, and practical outcomes. Each illuminates different facets of the policy,
but none fully resolves the trade-offs between equity, merit, and social cohesion.

(b) Procedural justice and substantive justice

Answer - Theories of justice can then be distinguished according to the relative weight they
attach to procedures and substantive outcomes. Some theories are purely procedural in form.
Robert Nozick distinguished between historical theories of justice, end-state theories, and
patterned theories to defend the first against the second and third.

• An end-state theory defines justice in terms of some overall property of a distribution

(of resources, welfare, etc.) – for example, whether it is egalitarian or the lowest
position in the distribution is as high as it can be.
• A patterned theory looks at whether what each receives as part of a distribution
matches some individual feature, such as their desert or need.
• A historical theory asks about the process by which the outcome has arisen.

Principles of procedural justice have traditionally been based on the idea of formal equality of
persons, i.e., their equality as human beings or as subjects of the rule of law, irrespective of
their differences in gender, religion, race, caste, wealth, etc. Often, rights-based justice is seen
as procedural justice, whereas needs-based justice is seen as substantive justice.

Substantive justice refers to justice or fairness of the content or outcome of laws, policies,
decisions, etc. It focuses on the fairness of the outcome or content of decisions, ensuring they
align with moral, legal, or societal principles of equity and rights. It looks at the substance of
the law or decision itself, not just how it was reached.

The Procedural justice also refers to justice or fairness, or impartiality of the processes and
procedures through which a law, policy, or decision is arrived at and applied.
According to Nozick’s particular case, a distribution of resources is said to be just if

1. Everyone within its scope is entitled to what they now own,

2. having acquired it by legitimate means (such as voluntary contract or gift from
someone who was also entitled to have it)
3. acquired by just the act of acquisition (such as labouring on a plot of land)

The shape of the final distribution is irrelevant: according to Nozick, justice is entirely a matter
of the sequence of prior events that created it.

Furthermore, John Rawls gave the principles of just distribution of social primary goods. He
claims that his theory is "pure procedural justice." By pure procedural justice, he means that
the justice of his distributive principles is founded on justice-as-fairness of the procedure
through which they have been arrived at. And they have no independent or antecedent criteria
for justice or fairness. If those principles had such independent or antecedent criteria of justice
or fairness but lacked procedural justice or fairness, they would have been principles of
imperfect procedural justice.

In his Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen emphasised the importance of Niti (Procedure or Policy)
and Nyaya (realised justice). While critiquing Rawls’ procedural theory of justice based on his
idea of `transcendental institutionalism’, Sen argued that there is a need to move beyond
perfect justice because there are plural views of what is just. Sen concluded that, along with
Niti, the Nyaya-oriented approach is significant in determining the value of the government
and the kind of society it produces.

Hence, it can be said that both types are interconnected: Fair procedures (procedural justice)
increase the likelihood of fair outcomes (substantive justice), but a procedurally fair process
can still lead to an unjust outcome if the underlying laws or principles are flawed. Conversely,
a just outcome may lack legitimacy if reached through unfair procedures.

(c) Aurobindo’s conception of Nation and Theory of Spiritual Nationalism

Answer - Sri Aurobindo’s conception of the nation transcends mere political or geographical
boundaries. He views it as a living spiritual entity with a divine purpose. He regarded the nation
as a collective soul, embodying a unique cultural and spiritual essence throughout history.
In his theory of spiritual nationalism, Aurobindo emphasised that India’s national identity is
rooted in its spiritual heritage. He saw it as a universal force for humanity’s progress. Unlike
Western nationalism, which often prioritised material or political goals, Aurobindo’s vision
integrated spirituality with political action, advocating for India’s freedom as a means to fulfil
its divine mission.

Aurobindo believed that India had an important role to play in the spiritual awakening of
mankind. This is possible only when he gets independence. Complete self-rule can be the goal
of true Indian nationalism, nothing less than this. Nationalism for Aurobindo was a divine
message so that the entire human race can benefit. Aurobindo’s nationalism was brand new
which was not based on any parochialism. He considered nationalism as a necessary stage in
social development, but in the last stage his ideal was of human unity.

Aurobindo’s spiritual nationalism inspired the Swadeshi movement, blending cultural pride
with resistance against colonial rule. He believed true nationalism required inner
transformation and unity, aligning individual and collective aspirations with spiritual ideals.
His ideas influenced revolutionary nationalism while offering a philosophical foundation for
India’s independence struggle.

For Aurobindo, nationalism was not an end but a step toward global spiritual unity, making
his theory a distinctive contribution to Indian political thought relevant for understanding
nation-building in a post-colonial context.

(d) Aristotle’s Conception of Equality

Answer - Aristotle articulated the concept of equality in Politics and Nicomachean Ethics. It is
rooted in his principle of distributive justice. It emphasises proportionality over absolute
equality. He distinguishes between numerical equality (treating everyone identically) and
proportional equality (allocating resources or honours based on merit or contribution).

According to Brian Nelson, for Aristotle, equality and justice are also synonymous, but his
conception of equality radically differs from ours; in fact, it is the opposite. Aristotle always
speaks of justice as proportional and the just state as one in which rulership is allotted to
individuals proportionate to their political virtue or ability. Since, politics requires freedom of
speech, and freedom requires equality, it follows that those who speak and reason best ought
to hold higher political office than those with lesser abilities. An equality of talent is Aristotle’s
political ideal. Aristotle argues that this principle of proportional equality is intimately
connected to the rule of law. He held that it is "just that among equals everyone be ruled as
well as rule”.

For Aristotle, justice demands that equals be treated equally and unequals unequally,
aligning with their virtue, ability, or role in the polis. This view justifies social hierarchies, as
seen in his defence of natural slavery and exclusion of women from political participation,
reflecting the Athenian context.

Bernard Yack argued that Aristotle’s equality is teleological, aimed at fostering the common
good of the polis rather than individual rights. Miller defends Aristotle, suggesting his
framework allows flexibility for contextual fairness.

Aristotle’s emphasis on proportional equality influenced later thinkers like Aquinas and
modern theories of justice, though his context-specific approach limits its applicability in
egalitarian frameworks. Martha Nussbaum has also criticised this as elitist, noting its neglect
of universal human dignity.

Hence, it can be said that Aristotle’s conception prioritises functional harmony over universal
equality, shaped by his teleological worldview.

(e) Hobbes's state of nature

Answer - Thomas Hobbes's state of nature is described in his work Leviathan. It is a

hypothetical condition of human existence without political authority, characterised by
anarchy, fear, and perpetual conflict.

He posits humans as naturally self-interested, driven by passions like desire for power and
fear of death, leading to a "war of all against all" where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short."
Equality in physical and mental capacities fosters competition, diffidence, and glory, rendering
cooperation impossible without a social contract. Motivated by rational self-preservation,
individuals relinquish natural rights to a sovereign, establishing absolute authority to ensure
peace.

Scholars like Leo Strauss interpret Hobbes's state of nature as a secular, mechanistic view of
human behaviour, emphasising rationality over morality. Quentin Skinner highlights its
historical context, reflecting Hobbes's response to the English Civil War's chaos.

Critics like C.B. Macpherson argue it reflects bourgeois individualism, prioritising property and
security. Conversely, Richard Tuck defends Hobbes's realism, noting its grounding in human
psychology.

Hobbes's state of nature remains foundational in political theory, illustrating the necessity of
strong governance to escape anarchy, though its pessimistic anthropology contrasts with more
optimistic views like Rousseau's.

2.

(a) Do you agree that democracy may have instrumental value, but its intrinsic value derives
from its moral superiority as a way of giving effect to political equality?

Answer - Amartya Sen has held that democracy has complex demands, including voting and
respect for election results. Still, it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms,
respecting legal entitlements, and guaranteeing free discussion and uncensored distribution
of news and fair comment.

Amartya Sen has also held that we can distinguish three ways in which democracy enriches
the lives of the citizens.

1. First, democracy has intrinsic value for human life and well-being. To be prevented
from participation in the political life of the community is a major deprivation.

2. Second, democracy has an important instrumental value in enhancing the hearing that
people get in expressing and supporting their claims to political attention.
 3. Third, the practice of democracy allows citizens to learn from one another and helps
society to form its values and priorities. In this sense, democracy
has constructive importance.

Democracy's value can be assessed through both instrumental and intrinsic lenses, with its
intrinsic worth often tied to its moral superiority in embodying political equality. Amartya Sen
and John Rawls emphasise democracy's role in fostering justice and equality, while others, like
Joseph Schumpeter, highlight its instrumental utility. Schumpeter, in Capitalism, Socialism,
and Democracy, views democracy pragmatically, as a competitive process for leadership
selection, prioritising efficiency over moral ideals.

Democracy's instrumental value lies in its ability to deliver outcomes such as stability,
accountability, and development. In Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen argues that
democracy prevents famines by ensuring accountability and responsiveness, as elected leaders
are incentivised to address public needs.

Robert Dahl, in On Democracy, underscores democracy's effectiveness in protecting individual

rights through mechanisms like free elections and the rule of law.

The intrinsic value of democracy stems from its alignment with political equality, a principle
rooted in moral philosophy. In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls posits that democracy reflects
the principle of fairness, ensuring equal participation in collective decision-making.

This moral superiority arises because democracy treats individuals as autonomous agents with
equal political worth, unlike authoritarian systems that privilege elites. In Sovereign Virtue,
Ronald Dworkin further argues that democracy's intrinsic value lies in its respect for individual
dignity, as it grants each citizen a voice in shaping their society. This aligns with the idea that
political equality is not merely a means but an end, embodying justice and mutual respect.

While instrumental benefits like economic growth or stability are significant, they do not fully
capture democracy's essence. Fareed Zakaria, in The Future of Freedom, warns that
democracy's moral appeal can falter if it leads to illiberal outcomes, suggesting a tension
between intrinsic and instrumental values.
Nonetheless, democracy's intrinsic worth, rooted in political equality, provides a normative
foundation that transcends pragmatic outcomes, as it upholds the moral ideal of equal agency.

Democracy's instrumental value is undeniable, but its intrinsic value constitutes its core
strength. This duality ensures democracy's enduring appeal as both a practical and ethical
system.

(b) “Political theory is neither a theory of politicking nor a theory of political intrigues. It is
a disciplined investigation of what constitutes the ‘political’." Discuss

Answer - As a political activity, Politics is usually associated with cynicism and scepticism,
demonstrating self-seeking behaviour, hypocrisy, and manipulation of attitudes. This negative
connotation hardly holds any ground.

Political theory systematically studies the concepts, principles, and structures that define the
"political." It explores questions about power, justice, authority, and the organisation of
societies, distinct from the practical manoeuvring of politicking or the scheming of political
intrigues. It seeks to understand the essence and normative foundations of political life.

Theory implies both science and philosophy. A theorist is both a scientist and a philosopher;
a theorist is more than a scientist; he is more than a philosopher. Bluhen explains political
theory as "an explanation of what politics is all about, a general understanding of the political
world, a frame of reference." A theory helps us identify what is happening in a particular case
of politics. It helps us to explain why an event occurred and to predict future events.

The job of the political theorist is really important. Brecht held that the function of the political
theorist is to

• see and analyse the immediate and the potential problems of the political life of society
• supply the practical politicians with alternative courses of action,
• see the foreseeable consequences of which have been fully thought through; and
• supply him with brilliant ideas and a solid block of knowledge on which to build.

When political theory performs its function well, it is one of the most important weapons in
our struggle for the advancement of humanity. Its contents have varied from time to time.
From the early Greeks, in the Western political tradition, to the end of the eighteenth century,
political theory concerned itself primarily with what politics ought to be.

During the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, political theory dealt largely with the
nature and structure of government as a decision-making body. Then, American political
scientists declared the demise of political theory against those traditionalists who advocated
the value of political theory as a guide to political action.

Political theory has happily survived the onslaughts of 'the end of ideology’ and 'the end of
history' debates. The concern of political theory today has been both the nature and the proper
ends of the government.

Political Theory is closely related to why and what of the institutions of the government, and
the whole political system in which the government operates. To study political theory is to
examine the context in which it exists.

The contents of political theory include understanding what is really ‘political’, to link ‘political’
with what is ‘non-political’, and integrating and coordinating the results of the numerous social
sciences to know its nature. Its scope is not limited to what it constitutes, but to what exists in
the periphery and beyond.

Suggesting that the task of defining what is political is a continual one, Sheldon Wolin (Politics
and Vision) includes the following in the contents of political theory: (i) a form of activity
centering around the quest for competitive advantage between groups, individuals, or
societies; (ii) a form of activity conditioned by the fact that it occurs within a situation of
change and relative scarcity; (iii) a form of activity in which the pursuits of advantage produce
consequences of such magnitude that they affect in a significant way the whole society or a
substantial portion of it.

Hence, political theory offers enduring insights in contrast to politicking or the secretive nature
of intrigues. It provides tools to evaluate political systems, critique injustices, and envision
better societies. By focusing on what constitutes the political, it transcends the ephemeral and
fosters a deeper understanding of human coexistence, guiding societies toward principled
governance rather than mere power struggles.
(c) Interdisciplinary orientation has also encouraged political scientists to make abundant
use of the theories and models evolved by other social sciences. Explain

Answer - The study of politics as a social process and political system as an ‘open system’
makes the interdisciplinary approach imperative. The political system receives ‘inputs’ from
the social system or environment, and produces ‘outputs’ which re-enter the environment
through the ‘feedback’ channel. Hence, it becomes necessary to widen the scope of study to
understand those aspects of the social process that affect the politics and are affected by it.

The interdisciplinary orientation uses theories and models evolved by other social sciences.

For instance, the elite theory was first systematically developed by Pareto, Mosca, and Michels
in Sociology. It was then applied to the analysis of political institutions, leadership, and group
behaviour, and to give new interpretations of democracy. Some contemporary approaches to
the study of politics originated in other social sciences. David Easton's concept of the political
system is derived from the idea of the social system initially developed in sociology.

The Marxian framework of ‘base and superstructure’ was first developed in economics and
sociology, then adopted as a tool of political analysis.

Game theory is another economic tool. It is widely used to model strategic interactions in
international relations, such as nuclear deterrence or trade negotiations.

Public choice theory blends economics and political science and examines how self-interest
influences bureaucratic or legislative behaviour, offering insights into governance inefficiencies.

The structural-functional approach was originally developed in the field of cultural

anthropology by Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, then adopted in sociology by Talcott
Parsons, and subsequently introduced in political science by Almond and Powell.

Harold Lasswell’s model of the ‘problem-solving’ approach was derived from psychology.
Psychology informs political science through individual and collective behaviour theories.
Cognitive psychology and behavioural economics shape studies of voter psychology, decision-
making under uncertainty, or leadership styles. For instance, prospect theory explains why
leaders take risks in foreign policy crises, enriching international relations analysis.
Understanding of politics as a process of bargaining is based on the theories of competition
that originally evolved in the field of economics. Schumpeter and Anthony Downs have sought
to analyse democratic politics using the economist’s model of the open market.

Thus, the use of theories and models of other social sciences in the realm of political science
has become a common feature.

3.

(a) Explain the defining values of Socialism. Discuss various schools of Socialism.

Answer - As a political ideology, Socialism emerged as a rival to classical liberalism in the 19th
century as a response to the horrific conditions of the work and in the backdrop of neglect of
equality.

As an ideology, Socialism has traditionally been defined by its opposition to capitalism and the
attempt to provide a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative. At the core of socialism
is a vision of human beings as social creatures united by their common humanity. This highlights
how individual identity is fashioned by social interaction and the membership of social groups
and collective bodies. Socialists, therefore, prefer cooperation to competition.

The central and defining value of socialism is equality, especially social equality. Socialists
believe that social equality is the essential guarantee of social stability and cohesion, and that
it promotes freedom, in the sense that it satisfies material needs and provides the basis for
personal development.

Socialism, however, contains a bewildering variety of divisions and rival traditions. These
divisions have been about 'means' (how socialism should be achieved) and 'ends' (the nature
of the future socialist society).

Socialism is a meta-ideology which C.E.M. Joad accurately described as "a hat that has lost its
shape because everyone wears it". There have been many schools of socialism, among which
Marx remains a critical "watershed point". Marx despairingly dubbed the socialists who
preceded him, like Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, and St. Simon, as “Utopians” for emphasising
class harmony and non-revolutionary views.
Socialism is further divided into evolutionary and revolutionary socialism. Evolutionary
socialism does not believe in revolution and wants to attain socialism through peaceful means.
Evolutionary Socialists believe in parliamentary democracy and want to bring social change
through the ballot. They eschew violence and so are opposed to a violent revolution. They also
do not subscribe to the dictatorship of the proletariat and advocate a peaceful democratic
transition from a class-divided to a classless society. Fabian Socialism, Guild Socialism, and
Democratic Socialism are all various types of evolutionary socialism.

Revolutionary socialism, on the other hand, believes in class struggle, revolution and the
dictatorship of the proletariat. According to them, a Marxist social change cannot be peaceful.
It has to be violent. A peaceful revolution is a contradiction in terms. Revolution is the midwife
of social change, and this revolution must be violent. Revolutionary Marxism is generally
identified with Karl Marx's scientific socialism. Syndicalism is also a type of revolutionary
socialism.

Hence, it can be said that there are various facets of socialism; however, they all have one thing
in common, which is their focus on equality and social and economic rights of the people.

(b) Power flows throughout the system like blood in the capillaries of our body.

Answer - Michel Foucault's concept of power radically redefines conventional ideas about
power in political theory. Instead of focusing on a macro-theory of power, Foucault presents a
micro-theory. He examines not the institutions but rather how every individual exercises power
over one another at a micro level.

Unlike classical viewpoints that see power as centralised, hierarchical, and emanating from a
single source (e.g., the state or sovereign), Foucault contends that power is diffuse, scattered,
and always present, acting via complex networks inside society. Michel Foucault sees power
as permeating the system like blood in the body's capillaries. This analogy shows how power
penetrates every level of social interaction, through institutions, discourses, and daily
activities, rather than only top-down.
For Foucault, power shapes knowledge, identities, and social conventions using repression and
productivity. As observed in organisations like schools, hospitals, and prisons, where people
are controlled and self-regulate through internalised norms, it works via techniques including
surveillance, normalising, and discipline.

For Foucault, ‘King has a monopoly over power’ is a discourse. Power is not just one-
dimensional or unidirectional. King is also under the power. He is under the power of society.
Society’s power is in the form of discourses. Discourses flow throughout society like blood in a
network of capillaries. Thus, ‘power is everywhere’. Power comes from anywhere, power goes
anywhere. Individuals not just exercise power, they embody power. Thus, individuals
themselves are the product of discourses.

According to Foucault, power is ‘technique’ and ‘strategy’. Power is not stored; power is
exercised. Power is not necessarily coercive. Power gives us identity. Individuals are vehicles of
power. Power is productive as it gives us identity. Where there is power, there is a scope for
resistance. e.g., Against the power of heterosexuality, there is a scope for resistance by
homosexuals. Thus, Foucault's theory of power is sociological rather than juridico-discursive.

Foucault's theory of power helps us understand a specific form of power exercised by society
and is known as ‘disciplinary power’. Discipline is a power; it is exercised in such a way that the
person on whom this power is exercised feels that it is in his interest. However, it is in the
interest of society/state. In his book DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH, he has discussed the evolution
of ‘disciplinary society’.

Foucault has given the reference to the panopticon prison. The society in which we live is like
a panopticon. We automatically develop the ability to govern ourselves, ‘Governmentality, the
concept given by Foucault. Those who are unable to develop ‘Governmentality are sent to
either prisons or asylums. Social institutions like schools, asylums, hospitals, and prisons are
based on discourses and represent the discourses.

He questions the Marxist interpretation of power as anchored just in economic systems or the
state. Foucault stresses micro-power, that is, subdued, limited forms of power that show
themselves in bureaucratic processes or social expectations. For example, timetables or tests
produce passive bodies matching people to society's goals without compulsion.

Foucault's approach has restrictions, nevertheless. Critics contend it runs the danger of
stressing dispersion too much, compromising the function of macro-level power systems like
the government or capital. Furthermore, his unwillingness to offer normative answers raises
issues of resistance against repressive power relations.

Foucault's capillary power model provides a sophisticated knowledge of how power functions
subtly in contemporary societies, transforming political study to concentrate on daily activities
and discourses. It exhorts academics and legislators to look at power outside of official
institutions since it subtly and widely influences society order and human behavior.

(c) Critically examine the "Radical Humanism" as given by MN Roy.

Answer - MN Roy was a prominent Indian philosopher and the founder of the Communist Party
of India. He is considered a radical thinker who believed that radical methods can achieve
overall "freedom".

Roy's Theory of Radical Humanism:

In his work ‘New Humanism: A Manifesto’, Roy laid down a conceptual framework of
humanism which aimed to understand and address the complexities of human existence.

His conception of humanism, scientific can be understood in the context of his Marxist
leanings. He believed humanism should be based on rationality and empirical evidence,
rejecting religious and metaphysical dogmas.

Roy argued that a scientific understanding of human nature and society would lead to a more
accurate comprehension of human potential and the means to achieve social progress.

Moreover, Roy's notion of integral humanism seeks to unite multiple strands of human
knowledge and experience, such as philosophy, sociology, economics, and psychology, to
develop a comprehensive understanding of human nature, society, and the world.
He argued that humanism should not only be limited to the material aspects of life but also
encompass human existence's intellectual, emotional, and spiritual dimensions.

For this, Roy emphasised that 'Intellectual revolution has to happen before political and
economic revolution' and believed that reason evolved as part of man's struggle for survival.

Accordingly, human freedom must also be based on the spirit of rational inquiry and a
commitment to objective analysis.

This way, Roy's humanism stood in sharp contrast to religious or fatalistic worldviews that
emphasized predetermined fate or divine intervention and argued that the ‘real meaning of
freedom is freedom from fear’.

Thus, by emphasising the potential of human beings to shape their destiny and create a just
and egalitarian society, Radical humanism can eventually help build a cosmopolitan union of
free individuals linked to each other with reason and humanity.

However, critics contend that human experiences and values are subjective and influenced by
cultural and historical contexts.

Scholars such as Michel Foucault and Clifford Geertz have emphasised the role of power
relations and discourses in shaping human experiences and knowledge, suggesting that a
singular scientific approach to humanism may overlook the complex and diverse nature of
human existence.

Roy also faced criticism for the potentially essentialist implications that individuals can
achieve self-realisation by integrating their individual and social identities.

Critics argue that this approach neglects the inherent contradictions between individual and
social interests.

However, Roy was not the only scholar who proposed a new vision of humanism. Others like
Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse also contributed to redefining humanism in the
context of Marxist theory and modernity.
Nonetheless, by synthesising key insights from diverse sources, Roy aimed to develop a
humanist framework that was inclusive, pragmatic, and adaptable to the challenges of his
time and guided social transformation.

4.

(a) There are constant comparisons between Oriental and Occidental thinkers. Compare and
contrast Kautilya with Plato and Aristotle.

Answer - Kautilya is often compared to his Western counterparts (Occidental) thinkers like
Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli.

There are similarities between Kautilya and Plato.

• Both thinkers thought that the state should be ruled by the learned and elites, an idea
that does not endorse democracy.
• Plato favored slavery, while in Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the caste system has been
maintained.
o Functional specialisation was important to their concept of social structure.
o Plato never discussed slavery formally, and his views need to be extracted from
some remarks made by him in his works, the Republic and the Laws.
• They also share their contempt towards the common man.
o Plato said that the common man is nothing but a bundle of appetites, while
Kautilya said that the common man is inconsistent and unsteady.
• Kautilya advocated the conquest of senses (indriyajayah), similar to Plato’s concept of
virtue, which favors the conquest of self or the inner enemy.
• Both prefer their king to be from the military class.
o Plato’s guardian is the Kshatriya swami of Kautilya.

There were some differences as well between the two ancient stalwarts.

• Plato favoured the aristocrats to do two functions, to rule and to do intellectual activity.
o On the other hand, Kautilya wanted Brahmins to do intellectual activity while
the Kshatriya king would rule.
 • Plato was a philosopher, while Kautilya was a seasoned politician apart from being a
philosopher.
• Kautilya has contributed substantially to diplomacy and foreign policy, but these
aspects are not mentioned much in Plato’s works.

Kautilya and Aristotle

• Both thinkers were almost contemporary with each other.

• Aristotle and Kautilya were teachers of successful kings. Kautilya was a teacher of
Chandra Gupta Maurya, while Aristotle was the tutor of Alexander the Great.
• Both of them believed in the organic theory of the state.
• They had similar views regarding republican states.
o Aristotle advocated thoughtfulness, good conduct, and well-trained citizens.
o He also said that the state should be organized to develop a class of virtuous
men and philosophers who could assert the supremacy of reason.
o Kautilya also attached importance to the king in preserving the state’s
solidarity.
o He also emphasised the importance of the individual and the value of human
endeavor to secure the best life under the king.
o Kautilya and Aristotle have discussed the economics and sociology of slavery.
▪ Both supported the institution of slavery. Kautilya, at the same time,
prescribed punishment for practicing slavery and seems more liberal
than Aristotle.

There are many differences between Kautilya and Aristotle.

• Aristotle gave a definite concept of the origin of the state, while Kautilya was more
interested in statecraft and how to make the state stronger.
• Aristotle defended slavery on psychological grounds, but that was not the case with
Kautilya.
• Aristotle even condemned and denounced the accumulation of wealth, while Kautilya
supported it as it was the basis of kama and dharma.
Arthashastra was of the same vintage as Aristotle’s Politics, and unlike Plato and Aristotle,
Kautilya’s work is broader in scope and approach. He embraces all the aspects of political,
military, social, economic, and cultural life and diverse components of state power that are the
constitutive elements of the state.

(b) Discuss the relationship between base and superstructure in Marxist theory.

Answer - The concept of base/superstructure first appeared in Karl Marx's A Preface to The
Critique of Political Economy. It models the relationship between economic and productive
forces in society and legal, cultural, educational, religious, and political forces.

According to this perspective, the structure of society may be understood in terms of its base
(the foundation) and superstructure (the external build-up). The base consists of the mode of
production, while the superstructure is represented by its legal and political structure,
religion, morals, social practices, literature, art, and culture etc.

The mode of production has two components: forces of production and relations of production.
Forces of production cannot remain static; they have an inherent tendency to develop in the
direction of achieving the perfect society.

Forces of production have two components: means of production (tools and equipment), and
labour power (human knowledge and skills). Men and women constantly endeavour to devise
better ways of production. Improvement in the means of production is manifested in the
development of technology. This is matched by the development of human knowledge and
skills as required to operate the new technology. Hence, there is the corresponding
development of labour power.

On the other hand, production relations in any given epoch are determined by the pattern of
ownership of the means of social production. This gives rise to two contending classes—haves
and have-nots.

When material productive forces of society conflict with the existing relations of production,
these relations become their fetters. The new social class that comes to own new means of
production feels constrained by these fetters and overthrows the old dominant class in a
revolution. As a result of the social revolution, an old social formation is replaced by a new
one. In this process, old contending classes are replaced by new ones, but class conflict
continues on a new plane. This has been the case till the rise of capitalism, which will be
overthrown by a socialist revolution, leading to the eventual emergence of a classless society

Raymond Williams, tried to topple this simplistic notion of the relationship between the base
and superstructure in his essay “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory.” He says
that the base and the superstructure should not be treated as separate entities but as
interacting ones which mutually influence each other.

(c) Critically examine the input-output approach, a system analysis derivative.

Answer - The political system or the input-output approach is one derivative of systems
analysis. David Easton was one of the early political scientists who introduced the systems
approach to politics. He has provided "an original set of concepts for arranging at the level of
theory and interpreting political phenomena in a new and helpful way". Easton defines the
political system as "those interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated and
implemented for a society".

Characteristic features of Easton's concept of political system:

a) Political system implies a set of interactions through which values are authoritatively
allocated.
b) Political system is a system of regularised persistent patterns of relationships among
the people and institutions within it
c) Political systems, like any natural system, have a self-regulating system that can
change, correct, and adjust its processes and structures.
d) Political system is dynamic in the sense that it can maintain itself through the feedback
mechanism.
e) The political system is different from other systems or environments. Boundary lines
separate them.
f) Inputs through demands and supports put the political system at work, while outputs
through policies and decisions throwback what is not accepted as feedback.
O.R. Young sums up the essentials of Easton's political system, saying: "Above all, the political
system is seen as a conversion process performing work, producing output and altering its
environment, with a continuous exchange between a political system and its environment
based on the steady operation of the dynamic processes. At the same time, this approach
provides numerous concepts for dealing with political dynamics in the form of systematic
adaptation processes and purposive redirection in the form of goal-changing feedback.

Easton's political system approach has been severely attacked.

Professor S.P. Verma regards it as an abstraction whose relation to empirical politics is

impossible to establish.

Eugene Meehan says Easton does less to explain the theory and more to create the conceptual
framework. His analysis is confined to locating and distributing power in the political system.
He seems to be concerned more with questions such as persistence and adaptation of the
political system, as well as with the regulation of stress, stability, and equilibrium, and thus
advocates only the status quo situation. In Easton's formulation, there is much less about the
politics of decline, disruption, and breakdown in the political system.

Despite all claims that the political system approach is designed for macro-level studies, Easton
has not been able to go beyond North America and the Western World.

Easton's political system or input-output would deal only with the present and has, therefore,
no perspective of the future and has less study of the past.

However, the merits of the input-output or political system approach cannot be ignored. The
approach has provided an excellent technique for comparative analysis. It has also provided a
set of concepts and categories that have made comparative analysis more interesting and
instructive. Young has admitted that Easton's analysis is "undoubtedly the most inclusive
systematic approach so far constructed specifically for political analysis by a political scientist."
Eugene Meehan states, "Easton has produced one of the few comprehensive attempts to la;
the foundation for systems analysis in political science and to provide a general functional
theory of politics."
5.

(a) Compare the composition, powers, and functions of the Rajya Sabha and the Legislative
Councils
Answer - India’s legislative structure incorporates bicameralism at the Union and state levels
to ensure checks and balances, federal representation, and legislative deliberation. The Rajya
Sabha, as the upper house of the Indian Parliament, and Legislative Councils (Vidhan
Parishads), as upper houses in certain states, play pivotal roles in this framework. However,
their composition, powers, and functions reflect their distinct constitutional purposes. This
answer compares their roles in terms of composition, legislative functions, federal
representation, and limitations.

1. Composition

• Rajya Sabha:
o The Rajya Sabha, or Council of States, is a permanent body with a maximum
strength of 250 members (238 elected, 12 nominated by the President for
contributions in fields like arts, literature, science, and social services).
o Members are elected indirectly by state and Union Territory legislatures
through proportional representation by single transferable vote (STV).
o One-third of its members retire every two years, ensuring continuity.
o Represents states and Union Territories, reflecting India’s federal structure.
• Legislative Councils:
o Legislative Councils exist in only a few states (e.g., Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,
Karnataka) as per Article 169, which allows states to create or abolish them via
parliamentary approval.
o Membership is limited to one-third of the state Legislative Assembly’s strength,
with a minimum of 40 members.
o Members are elected indirectly through various constituencies: one-third by
local bodies, one-third by the Legislative Assembly, one-twelfth by graduates,
one-twelfth by teachers, and one-sixth nominated by the Governor.
 o Like the Rajya Sabha, one-third of members retire biennially, ensuring
permanence.
2. Legislative Functions

• Rajya Sabha:
o Shares legislative powers with the Lok Sabha, except in money bills, where it
has only a recommendatory role (14-day period to suggest amendments, which
the Lok Sabha may accept or reject).
o Plays a crucial role in reviewing and revising legislation, acting as a check on
hasty or populist measures by the Lok Sabha.
o Can initiate non-money bills, and both houses must agree for a bill to become
law (joint sittings resolve deadlocks, though rare).
o Has special powers under Article 249 (enabling Parliament to legislate on state
subjects in the national interest) and Article 312 (creating All-India Services).
• Legislative Councils:
o Similar to the Rajya Sabha, Legislative Councils have limited powers over
money bills, with a 14-day period to make recommendations.
o Can initiate non-money bills, but the Legislative Assembly has overriding
authority in case of disagreements (no provision for joint sittings at the state
level).
o Acts as a deliberative body, refining state legislation and preventing impulsive
decisions by the Assembly.
o Lacks special powers akin to those of the Rajya Sabha, limiting its role to state-
level legislation.

3. Federal Representation

• Rajya Sabha:
o Embodies federalism by representing states and Union Territories, ensuring
their voices in national law-making.
 o Balances regional interests, especially for smaller states, as seats are allocated
based on population but with a degree of proportionality.
o Protects state interests in matters like constitutional amendments (requiring a
two-thirds majority in both houses) and legislation affecting state powers.
• Legislative Councils:
o Do not directly contribute to federalism, as they operate within a single state
and focus on intra-state interests.
o Represent diverse societal groups (e.g., local bodies, graduates, teachers)
rather than territorial units, aiming to incorporate expertise and varied
perspectives in state legislation.
o Their role is more advisory, with no significant impact on federal dynamics.
Comparison:

1. Both are indirectly elected and permanent bodies, but the Rajya Sabha
represents states at the national level, while the Legislative Councils
represent diverse interests within a state.

2. The Rajya Sabha’s composition is broader, incorporating Union

Territories and presidential nominees, whereas the Legislative Councils
include unique constituencies like graduates and teachers.

3. Both houses serve as deliberative bodies to ensure legislative scrutiny,

but the Rajya Sabha’s powers are more significant due to its role in
national legislation and special constitutional functions.
1. Legislative Councils, being state-specific, have a narrower scope
and less authority vis-à-vis the Legislative Assembly.

4. The Rajya Sabha is a cornerstone of India’s federal structure, while

Legislative Councils are more about intra-state representation and
deliberation, with no direct federal role.

5. Both face criticism for limited powers and indirect elections. Still, the
Rajya Sabha’s national significance and federal role make it more
 indispensable than the Legislative Councils, which are often seen as
vestigial.
Limitations and Challenges

• Rajya Sabha:
o Subordinate to the Lok Sabha in financial matters, limiting its influence over
money bills.
o Political dynamics (e.g., differing party compositions between houses) can lead
to legislative deadlocks.
o Critics argue that its indirect election and nominated members dilute
democratic accountability.
• Legislative Councils:
o Highly limited powers, as the Legislative Assembly can override their
recommendations.
o Existence in only a few states creates inconsistency in India’s legislative
framework.
o Often criticized as redundant or elitist, with calls for their abolition due to
limited impact and high maintenance costs.

As upper houses, the Rajya Sabha and the Legislative Councils share the purpose of ensuring
legislative deliberation and preventing hasty law-making. However, the Rajya Sabha's role is
more robust, whereas the Legislative Councils have a more limited, advisory role.

(b) Differentiate between moderate nationalism and extremist/militant nationalism.

Answer - The Indian national movement was a complex and multifaceted struggle against
British colonial rule. It witnessed the emergence of two distinct ideological streams: moderate
nationalism and extremist/militant nationalism. While united in their ultimate goal of self-
governance, these approaches diverged significantly in their methods, ideologies, and visions
for India’s future.
Moderate nationalism was dominant during the early phase of the Indian National Congress
(INC) from 1885 to 1905. Constitutional methods, petitions, and appeals to British liberalism
characterized it. Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and Surendranath
Banerjee believed in gradual reforms within the colonial framework, advocating for
administrative improvements, greater Indian representation, and economic justice.

Bipan Chandra notes that their approach was rooted in a "politics of petition" that sought to
appeal to the British sense of justice, drawing inspiration from liberal thinkers like John Stuart
Mill. Moderates emphasised economic critiques, such as Naoroji's "Drain of Wealth" theory,
to highlight colonial exploitation while maintaining faith in British institutions to deliver
reforms. Their methods included resolutions, memoranda, and participation in legislative
councils, reflecting a belief in dialogue and incremental progress toward self-government
within the British Empire.

Moderate nationalism was grounded in Western liberal ideas, seeking dominion status within
the Empire and focusing on economic and administrative reforms. Their vision, as Gokhale
articulated, was a “self-governing India under British paramountcy.”

Extremist or militant nationalism gained prominence after the 1905 Partition of Bengal. It
adopted a more radical and confrontational stance. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin
Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai rejected the moderates’ faith in British goodwill, advocating
for direct action, mass mobilization, and self-reliance.

As A.R. Desai observes, extremists drew inspiration from India’s cultural and historical
heritage, emphasising Swaraj (self-rule) as a birthright rather than a concession. Their
methods included boycotts, Swadeshi movements, and public agitation, as seen in the anti-
partition protests.

Tilak's slogan, "Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it," encapsulated the militant spirit. It
sought to awaken national consciousness through indigenous symbols and mass participation.
Unlike the moderates, who targeted the educated elite, extremists aimed to involve the
masses, laying the foundation for a broader national movement. However, their reliance on
Hindu cultural symbols, as critiqued by historians like Sumit Sarkar, sometimes alienated
minority communities, limiting their inclusivity compared to the moderates' secular approach.

Extremist nationalism was inspired by indigenous traditions and global revolutionary

movements, such as those in Ireland and Russia, advocating complete independence. Scholars
like R.C. Majumdar argue that extremists marked a shift from reformist to revolutionary
consciousness, challenging the colonial state’s legitimacy.

Though moderates criticised extremists for their impatience and potential to provoke
repression, extremists viewed moderates as elitist and overly conciliatory. However, as Bipan
Chandra notes, both streams were complementary in the broader anti-colonial struggle, with
moderates laying the organisational foundation and extremists galvanizing mass support.
Together, they shaped the trajectory of India's nationalist movement, with moderates
providing intellectual grounding and extremists injecting dynamism, ultimately paving the way
for the Gandhian phase of mass nationalism.

(c) Comment on Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movement

Answer - The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22) and the Civil Disobedience Movement
(1930–34) represent two landmark phases of India's anti-colonial struggle, orchestrated by
Mahatma Gandhi to undermine British authority through violence.

The Non-Cooperation Movement was launched in response to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre
and the Khilafat issue, and sought to paralyse colonial administration by encouraging Indians
to withdraw from British institutions.

Bipan Chandra notes that it shifted from elite-led to mass-based nationalism, urging people
to boycott government schools, courts, titles, and foreign goods while promoting Swadeshi
and khadi. Gandhi’s strategy, rooted in Satyagraha, aimed to awaken national consciousness
and foster self-reliance. The movement saw widespread participation, including students,
lawyers, and urban middle classes, alongside the Khilafat Movement’s Muslim support,
creating a rare Hindu-Muslim unity. However, Sumit Sarkar points out that its abrupt
suspension in 1922 following the Chauri Chaura incident highlighted Gandhi’s emphasis on
non-violence over sustained mass agitation, leading to debates over its premature end.
The Civil Disobedience Movement was launched with the iconic Dandi Salt March. It was a
more direct challenge to British authority, focusing on the deliberate violation of colonial laws,
particularly the salt tax. As R.C. Majumdar argues, this movement was strategically bolder,
targeting a universally relatable issue—salt—to mobilise diverse sections, including peasants,
women, and tribal communities. Gandhi’s breaking the salt law symbolised defiance of
colonial economic exploitation, galvanising millions to participate in boycotts, picketing liquor
shops, and non-payment of taxes. Unlike the Non-Cooperation Movement’s withdrawal-based
approach, Civil Disobedience emphasised active resistance, with tactics like illegal salt
production and forest law violations.

Judith Brown highlights its broader social base, noting significant participation by women and
the rural masses, which marked a new phase in mass nationalism. However, the movement
faced challenges, including severe British repression and communal tensions, as the Khilafat
issue had waned, weakening Hindu-Muslim unity. The movement was formally withdrawn in
1934 after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact and the Round Table Conferences failed to yield significant
constitutional gains.

The Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements were defining moments in India’s
freedom struggle. Scholar A.R. Desai views the Civil Disobedience Movement as more radical,
directly challenging colonial authority, whereas Non-Cooperation was preparatory, building
organisational and ideological foundations.

(d) Discuss the Marxist perspective on the nature of the Indian National Movement.

Answer - The Marxist historians have been critical of both the colonialist and nationalist views
on Indian nationalism. They criticise the colonialist perspective for holding a discriminatory
view of India and its people. In contrast, they criticise the nationalist commentators for seeking
the roots of nationalism in the ancient past. They criticise both for not paying attention to
economic factors and class differentiation in their analysis of the phenomenon of nationalism

The orthodox Marxist school sought to analyse the class character of the nationalist movement
and tried to explain it in terms of the economic developments of the colonial period. It
identified the bourgeois leadership, which directed this movement to suit their class interests
and neglected the interests of the masses. This was a narrow class approach and economic
determinism of the early Marxists like R.P. Dutt and V.I. Pavlov. Later Marxist writings of
S.N. Mukherjee, Sumit Sarkar and Bipan Chandra reformed this approach.

Mukherjee pointed out the complexities of nationalism, multiple layers and meanings, the
importance of caste and class and the simultaneous use of a traditional as well as a modern
language of politics.

Sarkar showed the non-bourgeois background of the Indian educated classes and argued that
they acted as "traditional" intellectuals, unconnected with the processes of production,
responding to world ideological currents like liberalism or nationalism and “substituted” for
the as yet inert masses of India.

Sarkar recognises the legitimacy of nationalism but does not ignore its “internal tensions”. He
contends that there were two levels of anti-imperialist struggles in India: elite and populist.
One need not ignore either of the two, but look at the “complex interaction of these two levels"
through which was produced "the pattern of continuity through change” that constituted the
dominant theme of the period.

Bipan Chandra and a few of his colleagues have given Marxist interpretation a distinctly
nationalist orientation in their collective enterprise, India’s Struggle for Independence. They
argue that the Indian nationalist movement was a popular movement of various classes, not
exclusively controlled by the bourgeoisie.

Hence, it can be said that the Marxist historians have contributed enormously to Indian
historiography. Their works have changed the course of historiography. The Marxist historians
do not form a monolithic bloc. There are wide divergences of views among the Marxist
historians. However, there are certain common elements among them.

(e) Balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP

Answer - Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing
civil liberties such as equality, freedom, and protection against exploitation, ensuring
individual dignity and autonomy. The DPSPs are outlined in Part IV and are non-justiciable
guidelines directing the state to promote social justice, economic welfare, and equitable
distribution of resources.

The interplay between these two sets of provisions has been a subject of intense judicial and
scholarly debate, as they embody the dual aspirations of liberal individualism and socialistic
welfare.

The Indian Constitution does not explicitly prioritise one over the other, creating a dynamic
tension. In the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described DPSPs as
"instructions to the government" to achieve socio-economic justice, while Fundamental Rights
were seen as safeguards against state overreach.

However, conflicts arise when the state’s pursuit of DPSPs, such as land reforms or affirmative
action, infringes upon Fundamental Rights, like the right to property or equality.

Early judicial interpretations, as seen in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951),

favoured Fundamental Rights, striking down a state policy on reservations for violating Article
15. This led to the First Constitutional Amendment, introducing Article 31A to shield DPSP-
driven laws from judicial scrutiny, highlighting the state’s intent to prioritise social justice.

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in harmonizing this balance. In Golaknath v. State of
Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court asserted the supremacy of Fundamental Rights, arguing
that they are sacrosanct and cannot be abridged even for DPSPs.

However, this stance was moderated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where
the court introduced the "basic structure doctrine," allowing amendments to reconcile FRs
and DPSPs, provided they do not violate the Constitution's core principles.

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), it was emphasized that FRs and DPSPs are
complementary, forming a "harmonious whole." It was argued that while Fundamental Rights
ensure individual freedom, DPSPs provide the socio-economic foundation necessary for their
meaningful exercise.
Granville Austin views this balance as the Constitution's "seamless web," integrating individual
rights with collective welfare. Austin argues that the Indian Constitution seeks a pragmatic
synthesis, avoiding the extremes of unchecked individualism or state authoritarianism.

Upendra Baxi critiques the judiciary's evolving stance, suggesting that over-emphasising
DPSPs risks diluting Fundamental Rights, particularly for marginalised groups. Baxi contends
that the state's pursuit of DPSPs, such as economic reforms, often disproportionately affects
vulnerable communities, necessitating robust judicial oversight.

The tension is further evident in cases like Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
(1985), where the right to livelihood (derived from Article 21) was upheld alongside the state’s
duty to provide decent living conditions (DPSP under Article 39). This reflects a judicial trend
toward an integrated approach, where Fundamental Rights are interpreted expansively to
include socio-economic entitlements aligned with DPSPs. However, conflicts persist, as seen in
debates over reservation policies or property rights, where the judiciary must balance equality
(Article 14) with affirmative action (Article 46).

The balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs is a dynamic process, shaped by judicial
interpretation and constitutional amendments. The judiciary has sought to harmonise these
provisions through its judgments, ensuring that individual liberties coexist with the state's
welfare obligations. This delicate equilibrium remains central to India's constitutional ethos,
adapting to evolving socio-political realities.

6.

(a) India's party system transformed, particularly after the 1967 General Elections. What
role did the emergence of regional and non-Congress parties play in reshaping India's
political landscape since then?
Answer - In post-independent India, several factors contributed to the rise of regional political
parties, including growing regional consciousness, the democratic federal polity, uneven
development, linguistic reorganisation of states, caste-based political mobilisation, the "sons
of the soil" movement, and ethnic differences.The 1967 General Election notably marked a
turning point as states began veering away from the one-party or ‘Congress system’.
The shift gave state politics momentum and elevated regional political parties’ role. The
paradigm shift in the party system from one party to the multiparty system coincided with the
growing significance of regional parties in electoral politics. Political scientist Paul Brass
argued that most of the national parties are regional parties spread over a few states. Hence,
he called the party system in India an ‘unstable fragmented multiparty system’. For instance,
some scholars consider national parties like CPI(M) as ‘cross-regional parties’ because such
parties have a presence in multiple states but don’t identify with specific regional cultures,
languages, religions, etc.

In the 1980s, state assembly elections elevated regional parties’ electoral presence and
influence. These parties became coalition partners of national parties, started determining the
electoral agenda, and negotiated to adjust national politics with regional aspirations.

The rise of regional parties loosened the constitutional framework in which federalism
leaned towards a powerful centre. This shift marked a tilt in the balance of power between
the centre and states, oscillating across different phases.

The loosening of India’s centralised federal structure helped to address economic disparities
across regions and other local issues. Coalition politics facilitated political inclusiveness,
allowing regional parties to represent their constituencies effectively at the national level.

The 1970s also saw a reversal, with power consolidating at the centre, culminating in the
national emergency declaration. States demanded changes in the Constitution and equitable
distribution of financial resources. A conclave of nine opposition parties urged the restoration
of cooperative federalism. All these factors led the central government to constitute the
Sarkaria Commission.

The post-economic reform period witnessed competition among states for attracting foreign
direct investments, further widening the existing income and consumption gap between
states. This disparity led to grievances among rich states as they began resenting their
disproportionate contributions to central assistance for underdeveloped states, often labelling
it as ‘reverse discrimination’.
In 2007, the Union Government appointed the second commission on centre-state relations
under the chairmanship of Madan Mohan Punchhi, along with four other members.

Some of the recent initiatives by the central government have contributed to rebuilding trust
between the Union and state governments. For example, extending the GST compensation cess
until March 2026 is one of the recent positive gestures in centre-state relations. The
organisational structure of NITI Aayog provides a deliberative platform for states,
strengthening the ideals of both cooperative and competitive federalism in India.

In addition, federal constitutional mechanisms for accommodating regional aspirations work

as safety valves to accommodate regional aspirations and prevent tensions. The legislative
framework for the pandemic response also signified the responsible role of the centre during
an emergency.

Nonetheless, some regional parties, especially those in power in states, have voiced concerns
about discrimination and limitations on state autonomy. Such issues often influence their
mode of political mobilisation both at the state and national levels. For instance, ruling parties
at the state and central levels accuse each other of delays in welfare service delivery or
development projects.

Moreover, tensions between the office of the Governor and state governments, central
legislation on matters in the Concurrent List, delays in allocating disaster relief funds to states,
etc., exacerbate the trust deficit in centre-state relations.

To sum up, it can be said that regionalism in India is a multi-dimensional phenomenon.

(b) “The Freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens
under the Constitution of India. However, the Constitution does not guarantee an absolute
individual right to freedom of expression”. Comment

Answer - In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Patanjali Shastri, C.J., observed that freedom
of speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political
discussion, no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of
popular government, is possible.

In Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India, it was held that free speech is one of the foundations of the
Indian Constitution and that it upholds it. Justice Bhagwati, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, underlined the importance of free speech, saying that a democratic society stands
fundamentally upon unfettered debate, discussion, and open dialogue, as it acts as the sole
"corrective of government action" keeping in view the democratic setting

The privilege of free expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) solely to Indian citizens,
and not to anyone who is a foreigner and not an Indian citizen. The rights granted by Article
19 of the Indian Constitution are those of a free person. These are not statutory rights but
natural or common law rights. Hence, every citizen has the right to exercise such rights, subject
to limitations established by the state as needed.

Freedom of expression serves four broad special purposes:

• It enables an individual to accomplish self-fulfillment;

• It assists in the revelation of reality and the veracity of claims; it enhances an

individual's capacity to participate in decision-making; and aids in the knowledge of
the truth and the revelation of it.

• It supports and enhances an individual's ability to engage in judgment making; and

• It supplies a mechanism for striking a significant compromise between social cohesion

and social transformation.

GROUNDS FOR RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH AND EXPRESSION FREEDOM

Article 19(2) of the Constitution limits freedom of speech and expression by allowing the State
to impose "reasonable" restrictions on the following grounds:

1. "Sovereignty and integrity of India"- Freedom of speech can be limited so that no one
can question India's integrity or sovereignty, or promote the secession of any section
of the country from the Union.
2. "Security of the State"- For the sake of state security, the imposition of reasonable
restrictions on free speech is permissible. The Supreme Court had to examine the
meaning of the words' security of the state' in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras.
The Apex court observed that only noteworthy and aggravated forms of public
disturbances, such as rebellion, waging war against the state, and insurrection, are
referred to as ‘security of the state,’ and it does not include the ordinary violations of
public order and public safety, such as illegal assembly, riot, and affray.

3. "Friendly relations with foreign states"- The purpose of this is to curb unrestricted
hostile propaganda which is not in favor of a foreign friendly state that might
jeopardize India’s fine ties with it.

4. "Public order"- Public order is an expansive expression that mentions the condition of
calm that persists among affiliates of political society. Consequent to internal
restrictions imposed by the government that this state of tranquility has formed. Public
order is disturbed by anything that upsets public serenity or harmony. Thus, community
disturbances and strikes organized solely for the purpose of generating dissatisfaction
among workers are violations of public order. Public order is not always disrupted by
simple criticism of the government. The Union Government would be able to ban the
propaganda being spread by a country that is at war with India under ‘public order.’

5. "Morality or decency"- Obscenity is described as "against modesty or decency; vulgar,

dirty, and disgusting" in India. It said that the "test of obscenity" is whether a
publication, when examined in its entirety, has the ability to debase and morally
corrupt those whose brains are vulnerable to such immoral consequences, and that
each piece must be evaluated independently.

6. "Contempt of court"- If a certain expression guised under freedom of speech goes

beyond a logical and rational extent of free speech and is tantamount to contempt of
court, it may be curbed.

7. "Defamation"- Defamation is defined as a remark that damages a person’s reputation.

Exposing a guy to hatred, mockery, or contempt is what it is all about.
 8. "Incitement to an offence"- The right to free speech doesn’t imply the right to urge
people to indulge in criminal activity. The constitutional term ‘offence’ is not defined.
As per the General Clauses Act, an "offence" is "any act or omission made penal by any
legislation in force at the time." The Court must evaluate whether or not there was
incitement based on the evidence and context of each instance.

It is reasonable to argue that the value of free expression is defined by the magnitude to which
citizens may exercise it. The right to free speech is a fundamental civil right. It acts like the rock
on which democratic governance is built. It is also necessary for the democratic process to
work correctly. Every person has the right to express themselves freely. As a result, no
individual must be deprived of this fundamental right to free speech.

(c) The Indian federal model’s criticism as quasi-federal is a narrow and textual analysis of
Indian federalism. Justify.

Answer - Prof. K.C. Wheare has held that the federal principles are the method of dividing
powers so that the general and regional governments are each within a sphere and are co-
ordinate and independent. The federal and regional governments coordinate and are
independent in their spheres and not subordinate to one another. The Indian Constitution can
be described as a system of government which is quasi-federal… a unitary state with a
subsidiary federal state with subsidiary unitary features.

However, this criticism is considered narrow and overly textual as it fails to capture the dynamic
and evolving nature of Indian federalism.

The Indian Constitution was designed to balance the need for a strong central authority with
the autonomy of states. This balance was crucial given India’s diverse socio-cultural realities
and the need for national unity post-independence. Dr B.R. Ambedkar has emphasised a strong
centre to maintain integrity and prevent secessionist tendencies.

Indian federalism is not static but has evolved through judicial interpretations, political
practices, and socio-economic changes. The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in
adapting to changing circumstances.
E.g. In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the SC held that federalism is part of
the basic structure of the Constitution.

In State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963), the SC ruled that the Indian Constitution is not
strictly federal but a unique blend of federal and unitary features.

In the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case (1994), the Court emphasised the federal structure
and limited the misuse of Article 356, which allows the President to dismiss state governments.

Furthermore, critics often overlook the political and fiscal dimensions of Indian federalism.
Establishing institutions like the Finance Commission and the Goods and Services Tax (GST)
Council exemplifies cooperative federalism. These bodies ensure a fair distribution of financial
resources and foster collaboration between the center and states.

Granville Austin has argued that Indian federalism is a "cooperative federalism" rather than a
strict dual federalism. They highlight the collaborative mechanisms embedded in the
Constitution, such as the Inter-State Council and the Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog),
which facilitate cooperation and coordination.

Indian federalism has shown resilience and adaptability. The Union and state governments
have navigated complex issues like regional autonomy, linguistic diversity, and economic
disparities through negotiation and compromise. The recent handling of the COVID-19
pandemic, where both levels of government coordinated efforts, is a testament to the
functional federalism in India.

If we compare and apply strict historical standards of the United States to the rest of the world's
constitutions, only a few, like Switzerland and Australia will stand the test of federalism.

The criticism of the Indian federal model as quasi-federal is a narrow and textual analysis. It is
incorrect to conclude that India’s constitutional structure is entirely tilted towards empowering
the Union government over the states.

Dr B. R. Ambedkar held: “The Constitution is a Federal Constitution…The Union is not a league

of states…nor is the states the agencies of the Union, deriving powers from it. Both the Union
and the states are created by the Constitution, both derive their respective authority from the
Constitution.” A structure of asymmetrical federalism was adopted to govern such a diverse
polity. As held by Philip Mahwood, in a culturally diverse country like India, federalism is chosen
not merely for administrative requirements but for the nation's very survival.

7.

(a) Caste continues to play a significant role in Indian politics. Examine.

Answer - Caste is one of India's most important aspects of social and political life. As a social
institution, it is firmly entrenched, and despite the modernisation trends in India, the caste
factor persists. In the post-independence period, the caste system not only made it possible for
hitherto oppressed caste groups to be accorded political freedom and recognition but also
raised consciousness about their potential as a political capital.

As held by Dipankar Gupta, the Mandal Commission can be considered the intellectual
inspiration for transforming caste-based identity into an asset that may be used to secure
political and economic gains.

Rajni Kothari, in "Caste in Indian Politics", argues that a change in the nature of caste has
occurred because of the interaction between caste and political institutions. Rajni Kothari
emphasises three aspects while discussing the interaction between caste and politics in India:

• The first aspect can be seen as the secularisation of caste. It helps to mobilize castes
for secular interests such as power and employment, and has helped form inter-caste
alliances and coalitions.
• The second aspect is related to the integration dimension. This aspect is important in
understanding the structural impact of democratic nation-building.
• The third aspect is when caste enters politics through consciousness and then gets
politicised. The practice of adult franchises associated with the provision of political
reservations has further strengthened consciousness among the concerned
communities.

Therefore, three consequences of such interaction can be deduced.

 • Firstly, caste members, particularly the poor and marginalised who previously
remained untouched by the political processes, got politicised and began participating
in electoral politics, expecting their interests to be served.
• Secondly, caste members get split among various political parties, weakening the hold
of the caste.
• Thirdly, numerically prominent castes get representation in decision-making bodies,
and the traditionally dominant castes' strength is weakened.

Castes articulate their interests by forming caste organisations. Rudolph and Rudolph held
that "the most significant aspect of the caste association in the contemporary era is its
capacity to organize a politically illiterate mass electorate, thus making possible in some
measure the realization of its aspirations and educating a large section of it in the methods
and values of political democracy."

Several studies have underlined the role of caste in empowering the people, especially those
from the marginalised sections of society. Such as Jaffralot and Kumar, in the book "Rise of
the Plebeians? The Changing Face on Indian Legislative Assemblies", show that in the post-
Independence period, the social profiles of several legislative assemblies in India have seen an
increase in the number of persons from plebeian or marginalised caste groups such as the
Dalits and the OBCs.

In his book "Who Wants Democracy?" Javeed Alam suggests that the so-called low castes
find castes an empowering tool.

Yogendra Yadav observes a shift in the changing participation of different social groups in
terms of democratic upsurge due to the effective role played by the caste organizations. He
divides this upsurge into two phases:

a. the phase of the first democratic upsurge indicating the rise of backward classes during
the 1960s-1970s;

b. the second phase of the democratic upsurge showing the increasing participation of
Dalits.
Caste Factor in Political Socialisation and Leadership Recruitment: Different caste groups
have loyalties behind different political parties and ideologies. People bank upon caste
solidarity to occupy and perform a leadership role. Caste influences the process of leadership
recruitment.

Caste and Party Politics: The caste factor is a constituent of the Indian party system. Some
political parties have a direct caste basis, while others indirectly bank upon particular caste
groups. Although all political parties in India use caste to secure votes in elections, in particular,
the regional political parties are predominantly influenced by the caste factor.

Caste and Elections: All political parties give significant weightage to the caste factor in
selecting their candidates, allocating constituencies to their candidates, and canvassing
support for their nominees in the election.

Even avowedly secularist parties like the Congress, the Janata Dal, the CPI, and the CPM take
into consideration the caste factor in selecting their candidates. N.D. Palmer has observed that
"Caste considerations are given great weight in the selection of candidates and the appeals to
voters during election campaigns." In elections, caste acts as the most important political
factor.

Rajni Kothari underscores that it is not politics that gets impacted by caste, it is caste that gets
politicised. Although caste has undergone many changes, it has become a factor to be
reckoned with in politics, and no political party ignores it.

(b) “Despite their limitations, pressure groups in India have played a crucial role in shaping
political development and fostering public awareness." Critically Examine

Answer - David B. Truman defines an interest group as "a shared attitude group that makes
certain claims upon the other groups in the society." One of the significant trends in the
democratic political process is the increasing role of pressure groups. Herman Finer viewed
that it is perhaps now an axiom of political science that, where political parties are weak in
principles and organisation, the pressure groups will flourish. Indian political parties are weak
in principles and organisation. Therefore, pressure groups are supposed to be very significant
in the functioning of the Indian political System. Many pressure groups played, and are playing,
a very robust, creative, and balanced role in improving governance.

1. Lok Satta and Janaagraha's unrelenting efforts led to significant voter registration
improvements over the past two decades.

2. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the People's Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) have been at the forefront of disclosing details of candidates for elective
office.

3. The remarkable work of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), National Campaign
for Peoples' Right to Information (NCPRI), and many other organizations in enacting
the Right to Information Act has been perhaps the best documented civil society
success for governance reform

4. The enactment of the Lokpal Act after decades of advocacy, and the memorable
campaign of India Against Corruption (IAC) led by Anna Hazare, is also one example of
pressure groups' crucial role in Indian politics.

5. Thanks to the collective efforts and advocacy of organizations like FDR, Lok Satta,
Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and eminent Indians, the Supreme Court
cancelled 122 licenses of 2-G spectrum, ordered transparent bidding; and directed
that a competitive, transparent bidding process should allocate all natural resources
in future.

Interest groups pursuing the causes they believe in and persuading the political parties,
governments, and legislatures during and between elections is an integral part of a vibrant
democratic process.

(c) Discuss the what reforms are required for better functioning of National Commission for
Minorities

Answer - The setting up of the National Commission for Minorities was envisaged in the
Ministry of Home Affairs Resolution of 1978, which mentions that despite safeguards provided
in the Constitution and laws in force, there persists among the Minorities a feeling of inequality
and discrimination. Under Section 9(1) of National Commission for Minorities Act 1992,
Commission is required to perform following functions

• Evaluation of the progress of the development of minorities

• Monitoring of the working of constitutional safeguards and laws in force.
• Making recommendations for the effective implementation of safeguards
• Looking into complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards of minorities
and taking it up with the authority.
• Conducting studies, research, and analysis on the problems arising out of
discrimination against minorities on the issue of socio–economic and educational
development of minorities.

The NCM currently faces three types of institutional challenges which have been classified as:
(1) Capacity-related challenges; (2) Financial planning and expenditure-related challenges;
and (3) Legal and constitutional authority-related challenges.

Capacity-related challenges

There are three major sets of capacity-related challenges for NCM: (1) Human resource
deficiency, (2) limited role of state-level minority commissions, and (3) underutilization of
technology.

e.g., vacant positions have persisted over time across successive commissions. The Vice
Chairman's position in NCM remained vacant from December 2012 to April 2017 (fifth and
sixth Commissions). There have been instances when, for months, the commission has been
without a chairperson and with "just one out of the eight stipulated members".

Financial planning and expenditure-related challenges

Conducting "studies, research, and analysis on the issues relating to socio-economic and
educational development of minorities" is one of the primary mandates of NCM. However, only
a small proportion of the allocated budget of the Commission is spent on research activities.
Legal And Constitutional Authority Related Challenges

The district and high courts can overturn the decision of the NCM. It leads to the depletion of
trust in the Commission's decision-making authority in the eyes of the public. The absence of
constitutional power to conduct independent enquiries renders the Commission legally
incapacitated to fulfil its duty.

Reforms of the National Commission for Minorities

• The National Commission for Minorities must be given constitutional status to instill
greater confidence among minorities and to make the commission more effective in
safeguarding their interest.
• There are certain powers available to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes &
the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, which are not available to the National
Commission for Minorities. They will be available once it is given constitutional status.
• Vacancies should be filled on time.
• The commission needs to spend more on research activities.
• The commission needs to use technology to increase operational efficiency. E.g. AI to
study the pattern of Minority issues.
• NCM can implement performance assessments, set targets for case pendency,
introduce stakeholder satisfaction surveys, and utilise technology for remote hearings.
• Empowering state minorities commissions and strengthening existing ones are also
part of these reforms.

With some changes, the National Minorities Commission has the potential to rise as an
institution that can serve as the beacon of minority rights in India. India being the largest
democracy in the world, with a fifth of its population comprised of minority groups, is faced
with the trial of proving its resilience and commitment to the idea of “unity in diversity” to the
world. The National Minority Commission stands at the helm of this challenge, to prove its
mettle as an institution that can safeguard the ethos upon which this nation was built.

8.

(a) “Whether justices of the Court like it or not, understand it or not, care about it or not,
the plain fact remains that the court can be used for purely party political ends in certain
situations beyond the control of the Court”. Do you agree with the statement? Give your
reasons.
Answer - The judiciary, as an institution, is designed to uphold the rule of law, interpret the
Constitution, and act as a neutral arbiter in disputes. However, its susceptibility to political
manipulation or external pressures challenges its autonomy and raises concerns about its
ability to remain insulated from partisan politics.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that the judiciary

acts as a check on the executive and legislature. Granville Austin, in his seminal work on the
Indian Constitution, describes the Supreme Court as the "guardian of the Constitution," tasked
with protecting fundamental rights and ensuring separation of powers. However, the
collegium system of judicial appointments, established through the Second Judges Case (1993)
and Third Judges Case (1998), has been criticized for lacking transparency and being
susceptible to executive influence.

Upendra Baxi argues that the collegium system, while intended to safeguard judicial
autonomy, can inadvertently allow political considerations to seep into appointments, as the
executive retains a role in negotiations. For instance, delays in approving collegium
recommendations or controversies surrounding appointments, such as in the case of Justice
K.M. Joseph (2018), demonstrate how the executive can exert indirect pressure, aligning
judicial appointments with political agendas.

Moreover, the Supreme Court operates within a political ecosystem where its rulings can have
significant political implications, making it vulnerable to being perceived as a tool for party
politics. Pratap Bhanu Mehta contends that the judiciary often faces a "crisis of legitimacy"
when its decisions align with the interests of the ruling party, even if unintended. The Aadhaar
Case (2018) exemplifies this, where the Supreme Court's majority judgment upholding the
Aadhaar Act was criticized for endorsing a government-backed scheme despite concerns over
privacy and fundamental rights. Critics argued that the Court's reluctance to strike down the
Act reflected a deference to executive priorities, raising questions about its impartiality.
Similarly, the Rafale Case (2018), where the Court dismissed petitions seeking a probe into
alleged irregularities in the fighter jet deal, was perceived by some as aligning with the ruling
party's interests, despite the Court's insistence on procedural neutrality.

The judiciary's susceptibility to political ends is further exacerbated in situations involving

public interest litigation (PIL) and judicial activism. S.P. Sathe highlights how PILs, originally
intended to protect marginalized groups, have been co-opted by political actors to advance
partisan agendas. For instance, in the 2G Spectrum Case (2012), the Supreme Court's
cancellation of telecom licenses was hailed as a victory against corruption but also fueled
political narratives against the then-ruling government. While the Court acted within its
constitutional mandate, the political fallout of its decision illustrates how judicial
pronouncements can be weaponized in party politics.

Similarly, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015), where the
Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, was seen as a defense of judicial independence but
also sparked accusations of the judiciary protecting its own turf against legislative oversight,
thus feeding into political debates.

However, it is critical to recognize that the Supreme Court is not entirely passive in these
dynamics.

Judicial activism, as noted by B.N. Kirpal, allows the Court to assert its authority and shape
public policy, sometimes aligning with popular sentiments or political currents. The Vishaka
Case (1997), which laid down guidelines against sexual harassment, and the Navtej Singh
Johar Case (2018), which decriminalised homosexuality, reflect the Court's proactive role in
advancing social justice. Yet, such activism can inadvertently serve political ends when rulings
resonate with the agendas of specific political parties or ideologies, even if the Court's intent
is apolitical.
Arun Shourie critiques this trend, arguing that judicial overreach risks entangling the Court in
political controversies, as seen in cases like the Sabrimala Verdict (2018), where the Court's
decision to allow women’s entry into the temple sparked political mobilization by certain
parties.

Despite these vulnerabilities, the Supreme Court has mechanisms to resist political
manipulation. The basic structure doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati Case
(1973), ensures that the Court can safeguard the Constitution’s core principles against political
overreach.

Furthermore, the Court’s ability to review its own judgments, as seen in the Sabarimala Review
Petitions (2019), allows it to correct perceived political biases or errors. Fali S. Nariman
emphasizes that the Court’s commitment to precedent and reasoned judgments acts as a
bulwark against partisan misuse, though it is not foolproof. The Court’s public accountability
through transparent hearings and written judgments also mitigates accusations of political
bias, even in contentious cases.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court is designed to be an independent institution, certain

situations—such as executive influence in appointments, the political fallout of its rulings, and
the misuse of PILs—can expose it to party political ends beyond its control. However, the
Court’s commitment to the rule of law, the basic structure doctrine, and its institutional
resilience provide mechanisms to resist political exploitation. The challenge lies in balancing
judicial independence with its role in a politically charged democracy, ensuring that the Court
remains a neutral arbiter rather than a pawn in partisan battles.

(b) Indian secularism differs from Western secularism, and over time, India has developed
its interpretation of 'secularism'. Comment

Answer -The Enlightenment and the historical struggle against ecclesiastical authority
primarily shaped Western secularism. It emphasises a clear separation between religion and
state. Scholars like Charles Taylor argue that Western secularism seeks to exclude religion
from public institutions to ensure neutrality. E.g., France's laïcité prohibits religious symbols in
public spaces, while the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prevents the state from endorsing
any religion.

The western model assumes a homogenous religious landscape and prioritises individual
liberty over collective religious identities. However, critics like Talal Asad note that Western
secularism often implicitly favors Christianity, creating an uneven playing field for minority
religions.

Indian secularism is shaped by the country's multi-religious society and colonial history. India's
constitutional secularism requires that the Indian state be neither wholly respectful nor
disrespectful to religions. Critical respect for all faiths is the hallmark of Indian secularism.

According to Rajeev Bhargava, it enjoins the state to keep a value-based or principled

distance from all religions: to interfere or refrain from interfering in religions depending on
which strategies best promote freedom, equality, and fraternity. Indian secularism does not
exclude religion from public life but seeks to accommodate and regulate it.

The Indian Constitution (Articles 25-28) guarantees freedom of religion while allowing the
state to intervene in religious practices for social reform (e.g., banning untouchability or
regulating temple entry). This contextual approach responds to India's diversity and the need
to balance individual rights with group identities.

India's interpretation of secularism has evolved through constitutional provisions, judicial

interpretations, and political practices. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping
secularism, as seen in cases like S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), where the Supreme
Court emphasised secularism as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

T.N. Madan argues that Indian secularism is not a rejection of religion but an attempt to
manage religious diversity through state intervention, such as personal law reforms or
minority rights under Article 30. However, Ashis Nandy contends that Indian secularism
sometimes alienates traditional communities by imposing a modern, state-driven framework,
leading to tensions.

Rajeev Bhargava has held that secularism has been bitterly contested, persistently misused,
and abused in India. No other term in India has been continuously battered and evacuated of
meaning or significance. He has held that the political project of secularism arose because
religious toleration no longer worked. What is needed today are new forms of socio-religious
reciprocity, crucial for the business of everyday life, and novel ways of reducing the political
alienation of citizens, a democratic deficit whose ramifications go beyond the ambit of
secularism.

(c) Discuss the significance of the Appiko Movement

Answer - The Chipko movement was launched to protect the Himalayan forests from
destruction. It was born in a small hilly village in the Tehri Garhwal district of Uttar Pradesh.
The Adivasi women led this movement in December 1972. The women symbolically tied sacred
threads around the trees, faced police firing in February 1978, and later courted arrest.
Chipko movement can also be seen from the perspective of Marxian ideology, which sees the
destruction of the environment as profit maximisation by the bourgeoisie class.

There was a close link between the local people's livelihoods and the movement's nature. The
local people considered Chipko as a fight for bare subsistence, which has been denied to them
by the institutions and policies of the State.

Women's involvement in household subsistence led to the overwhelming support of women,

which is unique to the Chipko movement. Unlike other environmental movements, Chipko
strictly adhered to the Gandhian tradition of freedom struggle, i.e., non–violence.

The simplicity and sincerity of the leaders like Sunderlal Bahuguna and their access to national
leaders and officials helped the movement to a large extent.

A major impact of the Chipko movement was that it prompted the Union government to
amend the Indian Forest Act of 1927, and introduced the Forest Conservation Act of 1980,
which says forest land cannot be used for nonforest purposes. The same year, in historical
order, commercial green felling was banned in forests above the 1,000-metre altitude.

It led to similar movements like Appiko in Karnataka, Silent Valley in Kerala, and North 24
Parganas in West Bengal. The impact of the Chipko movement is not limited to India and the
global South. Even Japan had a similar movement in Mt. Takao. The movement caught the
imaginations of groups concerned with the environment in countries such as Switzerland,
France, Mexico, Denmark, Australia, Canada, and Malaysia.

The biggest impact of the movement is the explosion of the myth that the poor are part of
the problem rather than the participants in the solutions. The impact of Chipko is palpable
across the valley.

A study by the Space Applications Centre of the ISRO, Ahmedabad, in August 1994 shows
that between 1972 and 1991, at least 5,113ha of forest were raised outside the reserve forest
boundary and in the vicinity of villages, in the watersheds of Nagolgad, Amritganga (Balkhila),
Menagad, and Kalpaganga, and other watersheds of the Alaknanda.

Tehri now witnesses a second wave of the movement under Beej Bachao Andolan (BBA) and
Uttarakhand Jan Jagriti Sansthan (UJJS). In Dehradun, Chipko activists have set up the
Himalaya Action Research Centre that trains farmers in organic farming and micro-
enterprises.

The movement has inspired eco-feminism in India and worldwide. The Chipko movement can
also be seen as a peasant and women's movement in the evolution of India's social
movements. Belief in non-violence, cooperation, and self-help are the fundamental axioms of
the Sarvodaya Philosophy that helped the Chipko movement move forward.

Chipko can be seen as a cultural response to the people's love for their environment,
particularly to the Indian ethos. Despite its many successes, Shekhar Pathak claims that the
movement has failed to provide a sustainable livelihood and is far from over.

To conclude, a movement must never cease. Chipko still survives, and the impact philosophies
of the movement have spread beyond the Uttarakhand hills and have global footprints in social
movements and even in social sciences.