Indian government and politics

1. Approacfte^ to tfte Nature of Indian state and Politic*
‘State’ tfic mon comrrwnly u,cd term in politic!. Vp to tfie fint fialf of twentieth century,
political science wa» concerned witR tfic Uudy of tRe phenomenon of tRe itate in it» varied
aspect» and rclatiunifiip • a$ distinct from family, tribe, and nation and from all private
a»$ociation» and group». Garner put it. political science begin» and end» with tfic «ate*.
Gcttlc. Gileftrin etc. have abo been tfic representatives of weft a icftool of political «Bought.
Etymologically, a state ii organised machinery for tAc mafiing and carrying <xxt of political
dccition» and for tAc enforcement of the law» and rule» of a government. According to Garner.
'tAc 3tatc. a* a concept of political science and public law h a community of pcrwn,more or
lew numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory control and po^ct^ing an
organized government to wfiicfi tfic great body, of inhabitant» render fSabitual obedience.
According to tfili definition, population, fixed territory, government and sovereignty arc the
c)%ential element» of the )tate. Different from society, government, awociation and tfc
nation», the itatc h considered a distinct institution. TRe 5tatc h a central player in the
modern drama or development, and nowfkrc h it more important tRan in tfic development cf
tBc tfiird world. It, wcccwc5. iu failure» and it* distortion» cannot be fully appreciated
witRout a proper understanding of the trajectories of itatc formation. To understand how ^tatci
arc forward and ftow tRey ftavc come to be wftat they are. we mu»t thirJk historically,
about them, and looft beyond tfie formal structure» to tAeir social and political specification).
Modern)tatc may be clarified into two broad fornu-libcral democratic and totalitarian. Wnile
tfie former itondi on tfic foundation of democracy signifying rciidcncc of power in the hand»
of the people and it,utilisation by tfieir efiosen representative» ； tAe latter h antithetic of
tAc former wficre political power i» in tRe Ranch of a group of power hungry politician or a
jinta of military oligarchy who strive to severe legitimacy of their rule by mean» of force and
fraud'. Another variety popularly finown by the name of •welfare itatc’ haa emerged. The
concept welfare »tatc ha» been deviled to meet the challenge of the totalitarian uatc. Various
attempt» have been made to understand tAc politic» of India. TfiougR tRere b no rational view
on tfic formation of tHe »tate but

2. mainly two approacRc» interpret tfie nature of the Indian itate». Tfte»e are liberal and
MarXUt.
Liberal Approach
TRe liberal approach »treıoed on inititution and procewe4 a» tfte ftey to understanding the
state and political power. It recognise» tfe need for development and social change. To itudy
tfi€ nature of any particular itate. it b nece^ary to analyse the relation between itate. power,
and social clai^ei and the purpose of tfte state. Tfte liberal democratic form itanda on 7 tAe
foundation of democracy. It 5ee» tF^e atate at, a democratic 5tate wftere rule of tfte people
“ implemented witA freedom of apeecfi and exprGMion. free and periodic election, a re^ponaible
and accountable government, independent judiciary, rule of law etc. Through rule of law it
prevents cRaoa and anarchy in tfie society wfiieft reitricti absolute freedom but creates
freedom witRin tfie law for all citizens. TfiU approach empfta-siied the |>ri»Yiacy and
independence of political pyoceiiei. Tfiii I4 evident from tfte writir>g^ of Rajni Kotftari, S.
Rudolpfi and F. Franftel. Liberal ıcRolar» ftave itre^sed the need of acceptance of the
centrality of »tate a» an autonomous actor» or relative autonomy, wftere state fia» to play
a fiigfily Interventionist developmental role. Further rule of one party in India i.e. Congress
party ’4 dominance for nearly faur decades Rad helped to itrengtfien tfie political bcue For
the emergence of a strong itate. It emerged ai Independent from colonial rule under Indian
national Congrew wfiicfi transformed itself into a ruling party and acquired tfie
cfiaracteriitic of an accommodating party. Political ^cientiıt» lifte Rajni Kotlari, Norman
Palmer and Morru □one^ Rave »ub^cribed to tfte Liberal modernist perspective. Rajni Kotftari
commented on Indian model as a society of dominant political centre' u/ftieft 15
cftaracteri^ed by plural identities. He considered tFie existence of pluralist tolerance and a
geniu» for integration a» the important factor4 for tfte wcce^ful e^tabliaRment of Democracy
in India. MorrU □ones focui was on tfte wording of political institutions and procemes to
understand tfte nature of state in India. He gave tAe importance to Democratic institutions In
bringing tfte transformation at different leveb. He strewed QH tfte "capability of political

3. inatitution» in bringing about economic and «octal cfiange". (1) It wa^ assumed that "with a
liberal democratic constitutional iyatem and universal suffrage. tRe Indian political 4}^te»n
would gradually develop its own processes of democratic decision- making, rational
administration, and moder» citizensFiip’. (2) Tftis combination of 'democratic ideology,
economic development, distributive justice provided a unique opportunity of transforming a
traditionally apolitical society in which the itate became tfte central instrument and politics
tfte principal agent of transformation. (3) Tftis shows the optimistic picture of political
institutions and democratic processes. Tfie liberal critique of tRe Indian state can be read in
tfie writings of Rajni Kotfiari. Atul Kofili. TRe Rudolpfis. Gunnar Myrdal.Gunnar Myrdal
criticized tfie inability of tfte state to enforce public policies to eradicate poverty or to
enforce laws and dubbed tfte institutional model of the Indian state au "soft state". According
to Myrdal,tfie Indian state was soft as it Fiad mo power to rectify institutioni tftat itood in
tfie way of reform and development. As a result, it could not tacftle tfe institution of caate
directly, tafte measures of effective land reform. eradicate corruption or enforce ideas of
development effectively tArougfi tF»e people. One consequence of tfiis softnes-s Ras been tRe
growth of left-wing extremism» wfiicfi Manmoftan SingFi called tfie "gravest internal tfireat”
to tfie country S security. Myrdal's state ‘ would have been able to tacftle Naxalism
wfiicft has
gravely affected tfie nation. Tfte liberal approach focuses on institutions and processes to
understand, state and political power in India. Tfie state is considered tfie central instrument
of social progress and principal agent of transformation. According to the Rudolpfts. tRere are
two groups characterised in tfie Indian state, one being tfte ’owners of production' and tfie
otfter 8 being tfie 'labourer' group. Tfiey analysed tfie utate as a mediator between tfieie
two conflicting groups, and in doing &o. mu»t remain autonomous in order to maintain
structural unity of tfie state. Tfie role of tfie state would fience be tfie "tfiird actor'. Tfie
Rudolpfis believe in tfie Indian “ate as a weafi -strong state. It is strong because of large
basic industries, ideology of secularism Democracy, Socialism and mhed economy tfiat fta^
minimized conflict». It b weafi IxcauMi yf ca)t« claw conflict), religious fundamentalism and
communal ism. rising levels of political mobilization etc.
Marxist Approacfi

4. TRen tfiere U Marxist approacfi where political economy ia the vital factor. State 14 the
moit important vefiicle of economic development. It ascribe» a partisan role to tfie itate in
tfe ongoing claw struggle between tfte ruling cla« and the ruled. Marxist would fave described
tfte Indian itate responsible for constituting a iocial order wfticft maintains hegemony of
capital over labour and aeefi^ to reproduce tfii^ relation^fiip. Tfili wa-a the main intellectual
counterpoint of weiterm political tfiougfit» beginning with Plato and Aristotle. Tfii»
coniidered tfie 5tate e^enti-al to tAe maintenance of order and civilisation. Marxist argued
tfiat tfie state emerged fiutorically along with tRe division of society into a ruling cla%5
tAat enjoyed leisure and privilege, wfnile tfie maw of people were limited to mafie a living
and were exploited aa slaves and proletarian» in tfie overall evolution of society from tfie
ancient period to tfte modern one. Later Marx was convinced tftat the atate could be
aboliified wfien tfie proletariat f»ad won tfie class struggle, ^ometfiing tfiat BG believed wai
inevitable. Commuv>i$t party of India deicribe» India a$ a national bourgeoble ^tate which fia^
the po^ibility of moving peacefully towards wcialuim by following a non-capitalist patfi of
development. The Indian capitalht cla»5 u today, after more tfian five decade» of po»t
independence, a claw wRicR Ftao expanded and undergone iome important cfiangei. At the time
of independence itself. there wai a big bourgeoisie, wfticfi dominated this claw as a whole. But
tfie outloofi of big
bourgeoisie Rcu undergone a significant change. It wcu the big bourgeoisie wfiicR spelt out tAe
type of capitalist development tftat A/a$ undertafien in India from tRe 1950»: (a) a claM
wfticFt understood tfte international situation and it» own bene in Indian society. It needed
tfte Indian State to accumulate capital and develop capitalism. Tfie State capitalum. wfiicfi
the Indian ruling clai^e-» iponiored. played a two-fold role. It enabled tfie development of
capitalism witfiin a constrained framework. A model of capitalUt development without a
tfiorougfigoing agrarian revolution. wftieft necessitated a compromise witfi landlordism and
tfte development of agrarian capitalism from above relying on landlords and tfte rieft peaiariU.
(b) Tfte subordinate position of tfte Indian bourgepi^ie vu a vU world capitalism required tfe
organic Unft witR foreign finance capital and reliance on tfti» imperialht capital to advance
tfte patfi of capitalist development. (c> Sucft a capitalut development could Rave a relative
degree of autonomy iw a iituatiow v/fieve tfterc was tAe exiitewce of tfie Soviet IMion avd
a. wcialut bloc;