1a . Behavioural Approach to Political Science

The behavioral approach in political theory emerged in the late 1940s, gained prominence during the 1950s and 1960s as a reaction to traditional normative and historical methods. It was further driven by decolonisation and the rise of newly independent countries that could not be studied under euro-centric conventional approaches. 

Behavioralism sought to transform political science into a more empirical discipline by focusing on the scientific study of human behaviour in political settings. David Easton defined it as the search for “regularities” in political behaviour that could be quantified and generalised. According to Robert Dahl, behavioralism shifted the focus “from institutions to individuals” and sought to understand how people behave in actual political environments.

The focus was shifted from normative questions of “what should be” to descriptive and analytical inquiries of “what is.” This allowed political scientists to engage in theory-building through systematic and quantitative analysis, through rigorous methods such as field research, experimentation, and observation. Charles Merriam asserted that behavioralism allowed political science to become more scientific, focusing on data-driven analysis. 

This approach studied voting patterns, political socialisation, decision-making, and leadership dynamics. Key works like Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba’s The Civic Culture (1963) used cross-national surveys to explore how political attitudes sustain democratic institutions. Similarly, Dahl’s Who Governs? (1961) empirically examined power distribution in New Haven, challenging elitist theories. 

However, Leo Strauss criticised it for neglecting normative questions of justice and ethics, which remain central to political discourse. As Karl Marx argued, political philosophy aims not only to explain but also to transform political phenomena.

1b. Pluralist Theory of State

The pluralist theory of the state posits that power in a society is dispersed among multiple groups rather than concentrated in a single entity. It emphasises the role of diverse interest groups, such as political parties, unions, and civil society organisations, in influencing state policy. Pluralists see the state as neutral, mediating between different groups to ensure balance in the distribution of power.

Robert Dahl, in “Who Governs?” (1961), argued that the state is an “arena of competition” where no single group can dominate because of the checks and balances provided by competing interests, terming it as “polyarchy”. Harold Laski described the pluralist state as one that “reflects a society of many overlapping interests, with no single interest able to prevail permanently.” This theory challenges the Marxist notion of the state as an instrument of class domination, instead seeing the state as responsive to the pressures of multiple constituencies. 

Critics argue that pluralism underestimates the power inequalities among groups, especially economic elites. C. Wright Mills, in “The Power Elite” (1956), challenges the pluralist view by arguing that a small, interconnected elite dominates the political, economic, and military spheres. Mills contends that this elite controls the key institutions of power, making true pluralism difficult to achieve. Charles Lindblom, in “Politics and Markets” (1977), argue that business interests have a privileged position in pluralist systems due to their economic power, which can skew policy decisions in their favour. Ralph Miliband, in “The State in Capitalist Society” (1969), argues that the state is not neutral but inherently serves the interests of the capitalist class.

1c. Locke’s views on revolution

John Locke’s view on revolution is grounded in his theory of natural rights and the social contract. Locke argued that individuals have inherent rights to “life, liberty, and property,” which governments must protect. 

In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke stated, “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people.” This justifies the people’s right to revolt.

Unlike Hobbes, who believed rebellion leads to anarchy and chaos, Locke believed that when a government fails to uphold its part of the social contract, citizens are not only entitled but obligated to overthrow it. Revolution, for Locke, is a means of restoring the rule of law and preserving natural rights. 

Political theorist Hannah Arendt later emphasized the role of Locke’s ideas in modern revolutions, arguing that his justification for revolution inspired movements that sought to establish freedom and self-governance, particularly in the American and French Revolutions.

1d. Decline of Liberalism

Liberalism has been the dominant ideology of the 20^th century leading to Francis Fukuyama to claim “end of history”. However, in the 21^st century it has witnessed a decline.

The decline of liberalism in recent years is often attributed to the rise of populism, authoritarianism, and economic inequality. Liberalism, which emphasizes individual freedoms, democracy, and the rule of law, has faced increasing challenges due to economic globalization and cultural discontent. Political theorist Francis Fukuyama, once optimistic about liberal democracy, now warns of “democratic backsliding” as populist leaders reject liberal norms in favor of majoritarian rule.

Economically, liberalism’s emphasis on free markets has been critiqued for exacerbating inequality. Joseph Stiglitz argues that “market fundamentalism” has led to a concentration of wealth, undermining the social contract and fueling discontent. Similarly, John Gray highlights that liberalism’s universalism struggles to address the particularistic demands of diverse societies, making it vulnerable to identity-based politics.

Global crises like COVID-19 and economic failures have further weakened faith in liberal institutions. Political theorist Francis Fukuyama noted that the pandemic revealed the fragility of liberal democracies in effectively managing large-scale crises, further contributing to the decline of liberalism.

1e. Linkage between Power and Hegemony

Power, a central concept in political science, was defined by Max Weber as a coercive relationship involving the ability of an individual or group to enforce their will despite opposition.

However, Gramsci argued that the power exercised through coercion can easily be challenged. Thus, he highlighted the non-coercive dimension of power as hegemony.

Hegemony is defined as cultural and ideological power through which the ruling class “manufactures consent” for its rule. It is difficult to perceive as the societal norms and values align with the interests of the ruling class, making their dominance and rule appear legitimate and natural. Thus, hegemony is the ability to shape worldviews. In international relations, it has been termed as “soft power” by Joesph Nye.

Gramsci concludes that it is due to the hegemony of the ruling class and their ideas that the socialist revolution failed to occur, as predicted by Marx. Therefore, he advocated war of position by creating counter-hegemony and propagated by organic intellectuals to challenge the cultural and ideological dominance of the ruling class. This would be followed by the war of manoeuvre as a direct, confrontational struggle for power, often associated with revolutions or military actions.

Q2a. Elucidate the meanings inherent in the term ‘political’ with appropriate illustrations. 20 Marks

The meanings inherent in the term ‘political’ have evolved from the ancient to modern times.

Traditionally, politics was closely associated with ethics and related to governance, power, and the organisation of society. Plato and Aristotle viewed politics as a means to achieve the good life, deeply rooted in ethics. 

Plato’s Republic marked the beginning of political thought, where he viewed politics as the quest for justice and the rule of philosopher-kings who embody reason and wisdom. Politics, for Plato, was a moral enterprise aimed at realizing the “Good.” Aristotle, in Politics, described humans as “zoon politikon” (political animals), emphasizing that politics is an essential part of human life, aiming for the common good. Political was considered a natural activity, and the state was a natural institution and took precedence over the individual.

Similarly, in the ancient Dharamshastra, politics was deeply intertwined with ethics and religion.
In modern times, with the emergence of the contract theories of Hobbes and Locke, Political became about the rational organisation of the state through contract and consent of the governed. The individual came prior to the state. If Hobbes saw politics as a way to prevent chaos and achieve felicity under an absolute sovereign, for Locke political was grounded in protecting natural rights – life, liberty, and property—and any government failing to do so is subject to rebellion.

Machiavelli transformed Politics from the study of the state to the acquisition and management of power. 

With the coming of liberalism in tandem with capitalism, politics became about state as a neutral arbiter managing competing interests of different classes. However, Marx took a different approach, arguing that politics was a “superstructure” that reflected society’s economic base. He saw politics as driven by class struggle, with the ruling class using political power to maintain control over the means of production. Gramsci modified this through his concept of hegemony where political is about manufacturing consent and legitimation of values and norms of ruling class.

In the 20th century, the political became more about the conflict of values. Rajeev Bhargava illustrates this when he says, “Politics is about negotiating conflicting claims and values in society.” This conflict can be seen in debates over economic distribution, social justice, and human rights. Hannah Arendt added a phenomenological perspective, viewing politics as the space of public action and speech where individuals reveal themselves to others, as exemplified in public protests or political assemblies where people assert their identities and beliefs.

With the rise of feminism, critical theory, and environmentalism, politics expanded further. Feminists like Carol Pateman argued that “the personal is political,” illustrating how power dynamics in the home, workplace, and personal relationships reflect larger political structures. Similarly, the environmental movement highlighted how political decisions directly impact ecological systems, as seen in international climate agreements.

In contemporary times, politics has become a battleground for conflicts over values, resources, and identity. Global movements like Black Lives Matter and debates over climate justice showcase how politics now encompasses not only traditional issues of governance but also cultural recognition and the distribution of resources.

Q2b. Marxism is a political theory of action demanding strict compliance with its core principles. Comment.

Karl Marx stated in his Theses on Feuerbach (1845): “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” This quote reflects the action-oriented nature of Marxist theory.

Marxism, as a political theory of action, demands strict adherence to its core principles of class struggle, the abolition of capitalism, and the establishment of a classless society. 

In contrast with utopian socialists who envisioned idealistic societies without practical means, Marx emphasized that change must be achieved through material conditions, class struggle, and, if necessary, violent revolution. As Marx stated, “Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one.” 

At its foundation, Marxism asserts that history is shaped by material conditions and the conflict between the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat (the working class). Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, declared “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.” For Marx, revolutionary action is not a choice but a necessity to bring about socialism and, ultimately, communism.

Marxism requires strict compliance with its principles because it views capitalism as inherently exploitative. The surplus value generated by workers is appropriated by the capitalists, perpetuating inequality and alienation. Marx emphasized that the proletariat must seize the means of production to abolish this system of exploitation. Lenin extended this theory by advocating for a “vanguard party” to lead the revolution and argued that “the dictatorship of the proletariat” is necessary to suppress remnants of capitalism and ensure socialism’s establishment.

Antonio Gramsci later modified Marx’s view by emphasizing the role of cultural hegemony in sustaining the capitalist order. Gramsci believed that revolutionary change is not only achieved through violent overthrow but also through ideological and cultural struggle, asserting that the working class must gain intellectual and moral leadership in society to challenge capitalist dominance.

Critics like Isaiah Berlin argue that the strict adherence demanded by Marxism can lead to authoritarianism, noting that ideological rigidity often results in the suppression of individual freedoms in pursuit of collective goals. Nevertheless, Marxism, by its very nature, demands unwavering commitment to revolutionary principles, as any deviation could undermine its fundamental objective: the emancipation of the working class and the creation of a classless society.

Q2c.  The nature of relationship between equality of democratic citizenship and liberty of citizens is influenced by economic equality. Comment. 15 Marks

The relationship between liberty and equality has been a central concern in discourses of democratic theories in modern political thought. 

In a democracy, equality of citizenship implies that every individual has an equal voice and participation in governance, while liberty ensures the freedom to act without undue restraint. However, economic inequality often undermines both. 

Economic disparities skew access to education, healthcare, and political influence, undermining both the formal equality of citizenship and the liberty to exercise one’s rights meaningfully. Without economic equality, liberty becomes a privilege enjoyed by the few, not a universal right. This also weakens democratic citizenship, as citizens cannot participate as equals in the democratic process. 

Amartya Sen in his Development as Freedom illustrates this. He argues that democratic citizenship entails freedom of speech and political participation, however, if due to economic challenges, citizens are unable to get education or access the public space then they lose the capability to exercise their rights as citizens. They will not be able to exercise their freedom of speech, make informed decisions in the political sphere and thus will be left out of the political processes that ultimately shape their lives. Thus, economic marginalisation often translates into their political oblivion. Poverty can prevent people from accessing education, participating in political discourse, or enjoying the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

Further as Robert Dahl, in Democracy and Its Critics, argued that “economic power translates into political power” and that deep economic inequalities give elites the ability to shape policy and decision-making. They are able to influence political outcomes in their favour undermining the principle of equal citizenship.

Similarly, C.B. Macpherson, in Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval argues that economic power becomes political power, resulting in “possessive individualism,” where wealth translates into political influence. This, he claims, distorts democratic processes and reinforces inequalities in liberty, as wealthier citizens exert a disproportionate influence over political decision-making, leaving the majority politically marginalized. 

Thus, as Aristotle observed, “a state in which the poor are too poor and the rich too rich is bound to have instability.” This tension underscores the importance of examining how economic structures influence political rights and democratic citizenship. This also results in revolutions as examples of French Revolution and the Arab Spring in modern times highlight.

Q3a. The debate on human rights is caught between the limitations of both universalism and cultural relativism. Comment. (20)

The idea of universal human rights developed from the natural rights theories of Locke and Kant’s notion of human dignity forms the basis of universal moral laws, making human rights non-negotiable. It was driven by a desire to limit how individuals may be treated, particularly by those in political power. It was further reinforced by the atrocities committed by the Nazi State on Jews.This resulted in the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Universalism posits that human rights are inherent to all individuals, regardless of cultural or national differences. René Cassin, one of the drafters of the UDHR, argued that human rights transcend cultural and national boundaries and reflect fundamental human values. H.L.A. Hart, in his essay “Are There Any Natural Rights?” (1955), also supported the idea that certain rights, such as the right to life and freedom from arbitrary interference, are essential for any legal system and should be universally recognized.

However, cultural relativists have challenged this universal conception of human rights. They argue that universalism tends to impose Western values on non-Western societies, undermining cultural diversity. In this context, Alasdair MacIntyre in “After Virtue,” argues that moral concepts, including rights, are deeply embedded in specific historical and cultural traditions. Imposing a universal framework disregards the diversity of moral and ethical systems across societies.

Leaders like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Mahathir bin Mohamad of Malaysia have critiqued the universality of human rights by advocating for “Asian values.” They argue that the Western conception of human rights prioritizes individualism, which may conflict with the communitarian and collective values prevalent in many Asian societies. Lee Kuan Yew, for example, emphasized the importance of social order and economic development over the Western emphasis on individual rights, suggesting that rights must be contextualized within cultural and economic realities.

Yet, cultural relativism faces its own challenges. It risks justifying practices that violate fundamental human dignity, such as gender inequality or authoritarian governance, to preserve cultural values. As Martha Nussbaum points out, “Cultural relativism can be a way of protecting power structures that disadvantage women and minorities.”

However, in defense of universal human rights, Michael Ignatieff argues that while cultural differences are important, human rights provide a minimal standard that protects vulnerable individuals from oppression and abuse where some particular section dominates the culture settings. In his work “Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry,” Ignatieff contends that human rights serve as a protective framework against tyranny, regardless of cultural context.

The debate between these two positions highlights the difficulty in balancing respect for cultural diversity with the need to uphold fundamental human rights. Therefore, a more nuanced approach, as advocated by thinkers like Amartya Sen, suggests focusing on public reasoning and dialogue to reconcile universal human rights with cultural contexts. This hybrid approach seeks to protect human dignity without dismissing the importance of cultural particularities.

Q3b. Deliberative democracy seeks to promote democratic decision making about public issues among the citizens. Discuss. 15 Marks

Deliberative democracy emphasizes the role of discussion and reasoning in democratic decision-making, allowing citizens to participate in debates about public issues. Unlike traditional models of democracy, which focus on voting and majority rule, deliberative democracy seeks to create spaces where individuals can engage in rational dialogue, share their perspectives, and collectively arrive at decisions that reflect the common good.

This form of democracy is rooted in the idea that citizens are not merely passive voters but active participants in the democratic process. Deliberation encourages citizens to engage with complex public issues, weigh different viewpoints, and arrive at decisions through consensus rather than coercion or force.

One of the leading proponents of deliberative democracy, Jürgen Habermas, argued that “communicative rationality”—the ability to engage in reasoned, inclusive dialogue—is essential for legitimate democratic decision-making. According to Habermas, decisions made through open, respectful, and informed public deliberation are more likely to be just and legitimate because they involve active participation from a broad spectrum of society.

Further, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson argue in Why Deliberative Democracy?, “the moral force of deliberative democracy lies in its capacity to treat citizens not just as subjects of law but as co-authors of the laws they must obey.”
An example of this is the Irish Citizens’ Assembly, which brought together randomly selected citizens to deliberate on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. Through extensive discussion, they contributed to significant changes in Irish law, showcasing the power of informed public dialogue in shaping national policies.

However, critics point out that deliberative democracy may be idealistic, as inequalities in power, access to information, and social status can affect the quality and inclusivity of deliberations.

For this reason, deliberative democracy to work effectively, certain conditions must be met. Joshua Cohen, in “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” outlines that deliberation must occur under conditions of equality, inclusiveness, and freedom. All participants should have equal opportunity to contribute, free from coercion, and should be genuinely open to considering the arguments of others. Cohen argues that the legitimacy of democratic decisions depends on this process of public reasoning, where decisions are reached through deliberation that respects the perspectives of all affected parties.

In conclusion, deliberative democracy seeks to strengthen democratic governance by promoting reasoned dialogue and collective decision-making, ensuring that democratic processes reflect the will and welfare of the people through active participation.

Q3c. Dharmashastra presents a duty-centric worldview for individuals and communities. Comment. 15 Marks

Bhikhu Parekh claims that ancient Indian political thought stands on the twin pillars of Dharma and Danda. Dharma is the core concern of Dharamshastra, such as Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, etc., whereas Danda is central to the Arthshastra tradition.

Dharma is defined as that which holds society together. It is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘dhr’ meaning to hold. Society could be held together when each individual and group performs their specific duties. The specific duties are assigned by one’s birth, and, consequently one’s place in the social hierarchy and structure. 

Duties or Dharma for each individual are outlined based on one’s caste (varna), stage of life (ashrama), and gender. According to the Dharmashastra, every individual is bound by their social and cosmic responsibilities, which are considered essential for maintaining social order and cosmic balance (Rta). 

The duty-centric worldview of Dharmashastra is hierarchical and communal. It defines different duties for each class and section of society. For example, the Brahmins’ primary duty is to preserve knowledge and perform rituals, while the Kshatriyas are responsible for protecting the kingdom and ensuring justice. This hierarchical distribution of duties reflects a collective social vision where each individual contributes to the larger community’s welfare.

Political thinker Patrick Olivelle notes, “In the Dharmashastra, the emphasis is less on individual autonomy and more on the individual’s role in sustaining the social and cosmic order.”

Further, it is the duty(rajdharma) of the King to ensure that each individual and group performs their respective duties so that harmony and balance can be esnured in the society.

The emphasis on duty in Dharamshastra has shaped Indian political thought, such as Gandhi’s, who viewed freedom as the performance of one’s duty. In this framework, duties are seen as essential for maintaining social cohesion, prioritizing societal welfare over individual rights.

However, critics like B.R. Ambedkar argued that the Dharmashastra reinforced caste-based hierarchies, perpetuating social inequality. Ambedkar critiqued the texts for “promoting subordination through the duties assigned to lower castes,” viewing them as rigid and oppressive.

Q4a. Legitimacy adds positive value to political authority and obligation. Discuss. 20 Marks

Legitimacy, defined as an act or arrangement that is considered lawful by those affected by it, is crucial in transforming power into authority and establishing political obligation. This concept has been central to political theory for centuries, with thinkers like Aristotle arguing that governmental legitimacy is rooted in constitutionalism and the consent of the governed, while Jean-Jacques Rousseau posited that legitimacy arises from adherence to the general will. 

Legitimacy is crucial to political authority as it transforms power into a morally accepted and respected form of governance. When political authority is viewed as legitimate, citizens are more likely to obey laws, engage in civic duties, and accept the government’s decisions, even when they disagree. This relationship between legitimacy and political obligation ensures stability and consent, making governance more effective. 

The mechanism to transform political authority however differ. Machiavelli argued for using religion to legitmise power into authority. Max Weber has identified three types of legitimacy: traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. Traditional legitimacy relies on customs and norms, charismatic bases itssel on the character of leader and legal-rational rests on the rule of law and democratic institutions, for political authority to be exercised and demand political obligation from citizens. Further, for Locke, the legitimacy of political authority depends on its respect for natural rights and the social contract.

Similarly, political obligation is achieved through differing means. For Hobbes its through the fear of the punishment by the absolute sovereign, whereas for Locke, the consent of the governed ensures political obligation. Legitimacy adds positive value to political authority and obligation. However, for marxian thinker Gramsci, political oblihation is ensured through hegemony by “manufacturing of the consent” of the governed.

Moreover, Jürgen Habermas argued that “legitimacy is achieved when decisions are justified through rational deliberation,” suggesting that legitimacy comes from inclusive, transparent, and reasoned processes of decision-making, reflecting the will of the people.

In contrast, the absence of legitimacy leads to political instability and resistance, as people view authority as coercive and unjust. For example, during the Arab Spring, regimes lacking legitimacy faced widespread uprisings, as their authority was seen as oppressive and disconnected from the people’s will.

In conclusion, legitimacy adds positive value to political authority by fostering voluntary compliance, civic participation, and stability, ensuring that political obligation is derived from moral consent rather than force.

Q4b. Critically examine Plato’s theory of Forms. 15 Marks

Plato’s Theory of Forms is the cornerstone of his philosophy, providing the foundation for his views on knowledge, ethics, psychology, and the state. Also known as the theory of Ideas, it posits that the material world is a mere shadow of a higher reality. 

According to Plato, everything in the empirical world is an imperfect reflection of perfect, immutable Forms or Ideas that exist in a transcendental realm. There is a dualism between the empirical world of sensation, which Plato calls the world of appearances or becoming, and a higher realm of Forms or Ideas, which represent the perfect, unchanging realities.

Forms, according to Plato, transcend the material world and include both meta-physical and ethical dimensions. They are not objects of sensory experience but of understanding. For example, the physical world contains imperfect versions of things like trees or chairs, but these are mere reflections of the perfect and immutable Form of a tree or chair, which exists in the transcendental realm. Plato argued that only through grasping these Forms can one achieve true knowledge, as the material world is characterized by constant change and imperfection.

Plato also suggests that all Forms participate in an ultimate Form, which he calls the Form of the Good. This Good is the highest reality, the ultimate source of order and meaning in the universe. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato illustrates that one achieves the knowledge of the Good when one transcends the world of appearances, symbolized by the Sun, which is the source of life and knowledge. The Good, according to Plato, unites both physical and ethical principles, and while it is grasped through rational knowledge, its full illumination in the mind is a mystical experience, transcending mere logic.

In The Republic, he illustrates this through the Allegory of the Cave, where prisoners, seeing only shadows on the cave wall, mistake them for reality. Only by leaving the cave (the world of appearances) and seeing the Forms (the real objects casting the shadows) can one attain true knowledge. For Plato, the philosopher-king is one who has grasped these Forms and is thus uniquely qualified to rule.

Critics, however, argue that Plato’s theory is overly abstract and disconnected from practical reality. Aristotle, his student, critiqued the theory, stating that “the Forms are mere empty abstractions” and argued that Forms cannot exist independently of particular things. Modern thinkers, like Karl Popper, have also critiqued the theory for leading to authoritarianism by justifying rule by an enlightened elite.

Q4c. Manabendra Nath Roy’s political thought highlighted the humanistic aspects of Marxism. Discuss. 15 Marks

Manabendra Nath Roy (M.N. Roy) made significant contributions to political thought by highlighting the humanistic dimensions of Marxism. Unlike classical Marxists who focused on the material and economic aspects of class struggle, Roy emphasized the importance of human freedom and individual autonomy within Marxist theory. His approach can be seen as a synthesis of Marxism and humanism, which aimed at liberating individuals not only from economic oppression but also from intellectual and spiritual domination.

Roy critiqued the deterministic elements of Marxism, particularly the overemphasis on economic factors in shaping human society. He argued that “the value of an individual should not be measured by his utility in an economic system.” For Roy, the ultimate goal of socialism should not only be the establishment of a classless society but also the development of the human personality. He believed that individual freedom was a prerequisite for genuine socialism, making his Marxism more human-centered than material-centered.

Roy’s departure from orthodox Marxism is evident in his theory of Radical Humanism, where he stressed the need for a rational and ethical social order, grounded in human dignity and reason. He believed that the socialist movement should focus on the moral development of individuals rather than merely the control of the means of production. This perspective places Roy closer to thinkers like Rosa Luxemburg, who also critiqued the authoritarian tendencies within Marxist movements.

In conclusion, M.N. Roy’s political thought enriched Marxism by integrating a strong humanistic element, arguing that the true goal of socialism was not just economic equality but the realization of individual freedom and human potential.

Section B

Q5a Constitutional morality in the Indian Constitution

Constitutional morality draws from George Grote’s conception of reverence for constitutional forms and self-restraint, which are crucial for maintaining freedom and stability in governance. 

Constitutional morality, as envisioned in the Indian Constitution, refers to adherence to the core principles of justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity enshrined in the Constitution. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized its importance, stating, “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment, it has to be cultivated.” mbedkar viewed constitutional morality as essential for managing differences and ensuring that citizens’ allegiance to the Constitution was non-transactional. It demands commitment to constitutional processes over singular political or moral beliefs.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta elaborates on this concept, stating that constitutional morality “requires that institutions operate within the limits of the Constitution, and individuals act in ways that ensure the preservation of its spirit.” Mehta argues that constitutional morality demands vigilance against majoritarianism and the misuse of state power, urging citizens and institutions to respect both the text and spirit of the Constitution. He stresses that constitutional morality is the bulwark against the erosion of democratic norms in a diverse and plural society like India.

Moreover, the judiciary in cases like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Sabarimala has applied constitutional morality to prioritize the protection of fundamental rights over societal norms. The courts have used this concept to challenge the misuse of power and ensure that public morality does not override constitutional principles.

Thus, constitutional morality acts as a guide for sustaining India’s democratic order and protecting individual rights while ensuring justice and equality for all.

Q5b. Objective Resolution of the Constituent Assembly

The Objective Resolution, introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946 in the Constituent Assembly, laid the foundational vision for the Indian Constitution. It outlined the core ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, serving as a guiding philosophy for the drafting process. Nehru emphasized that India would be a sovereign republic, ensuring democratic governance and social justice. This resolution marked the shift from colonial rule to self-governance, emphasizing sovereignty resting with the people. B.R. Ambedkar saw it as a crucial step towards building an inclusive and egalitarian society, which would uphold the dignity of all citizens, especially those marginalized.

Granville Austin noted that the Objective Resolution embodied the spirit of a modern, progressive India, laying the groundwork for a constitution that would reflect the aspirations of a diverse and pluralistic society. It continues to resonate in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, encapsulating the vision for a democratic and just India.

Q5c. Legal remedies in Part III of the Constitution of India

Part III of the Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, and legal remedies are provided through Article 32, famously described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.

Article 32 allows individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court if their fundamental rights are violated, ensuring swift justice and protection of rights. It includes the power to issue writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.

Granville Austin emphasizes that these remedies make the judiciary the “guardian of fundamental rights,” upholding the rule of law and democratic values. Article 226 provides similar remedies in High Courts, further expanding access to justice across the country.

The Supreme Court, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), emphasized that “the power of judicial review under Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution,” thus establishing that this right cannot be abrogated or diluted. The Court underlined that legal remedies are a cornerstone of constitutional governance, ensuring the protection of individual liberties.

Q5d. Relevance of the Legislative Council

The relevance of Legislative Councils has sparked ongoing debate. Proponents argue that they provide a necessary forum for detailed scrutiny and deliberation on bills, reducing hasty decision-making in state assemblies. Political thinker Rajni Kothari remarked that Legislative Councils serve as a “check on hasty legislation,” offering sober second thought, particularly on complex matters.

However, critics argue that these Councils are often redundant, slow down the legislative process, and serve as platforms for political patronage. B.R. Ambedkar himself was skeptical, believing that bicameralism at the state level could be unnecessary and burdensome. The costs associated with maintaining these Councils are also criticized, with opponents claiming they offer little in terms of legislative productivity.

Despite these critiques, states with Legislative Councils, such as Karnataka and Maharashtra, see them as essential for regional representation and offering experienced, often apolitical members a role in governance. The future of Legislative Councils continues to depend on political and regional contexts, with periodic demands for their abolition or reformation.

Q5e. Women’s role in anti-arrack movement

The anti-arrack movement, which began in Andhra Pradesh in the 1990s, was a grassroots protest primarily led by rural women against the state-sanctioned sale of arrack (a local alcoholic drink). Women, affected by domestic violence and financial instability caused by alcoholism, organized themselves to demand a ban on the sale of alcohol in their communities. Historian Susie Tharu notes that the movement “gave women a voice in public policy,” as it transcended the personal to the political.

Inspired by this, similar movements arose in other parts of India, reflecting the empowerment of women in advocating for social reform. The movement highlighted how alcohol abuse disproportionately impacted women and families, leading to larger social issues such as poverty and violence. Political thinker Vandana Shiva emphasizes that the anti-arrack movement was not just about alcohol but about “women reclaiming agency over their lives and communities.”

The success of the movement led to a temporary prohibition in Andhra Pradesh, demonstrating the power of collective action by women in challenging social and political structures.

Q6a. How far do you agree that the Directive Principles of State Policy are more fundamental than the Fundamental Rights in meeting socio-economic justice as mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution? 20 Marks

B.R. Ambedkar has claimed that “the Directive Principles are like the instrument of instructions… they are fundamental in the governance of the country.”

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), outlined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, aim to establish socio-economic justice and welfare, aligning with the Preamble’s vision of securing justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens. Unlike Fundamental Rights, which are enforceable in courts, DPSPs are non-justiciable. However, they reflect the state’s moral and constitutional obligation to create a just society. DPSPs such as Article 39(b) and (c), which mandate equitable distribution of resources and prevent concentration of wealth, directly aim at social and economic justice.

The Supreme Court, in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), ruled that Fundamental Rights take precedence over DPSPs in case of conflict. However, the Court later adopted a more balanced approach in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), asserting that “harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are essential to realizing the goals of the Constitution.” Justice Bhagwati, in the same case, emphasized that DPSPs are “fundamental to the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply them.”

Notably, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court ruled that certain DPSPs—like those promoting equitable distribution of resources—are part of the basic structure doctrine, preventing amendments from violating their spirit.

Examples of DPSPs in action include the implementation of the Right to Education (Article 45), which led to the enactment of the Right to Education Act in 2009, and Article 39(b) and (c), which focus on equitable distribution of resources and the prevention of wealth concentration. These principles have influenced land reform laws, minimum wage policies, and social welfare schemes such as MGNREGA, which aims to provide employment as a fundamental right.

Granville Austin observed that DPSPs serve as a “moral compass” for legislators, and represent the “social revolution” the Constitution sought to achieve. However, thinkers like B.N. Rau had argued that the non-enforceable nature of DPSPs limits their direct impact.

In conclusion, while DPSPs lack enforceability, they are essential for achieving the socio-economic justice envisioned in the Preamble. Through judicial interpretation and legislation, they contribute significantly to reducing inequality and promoting social welfare, making them fundamental in realizing the Constitution’s vision.

Q6b. Explain the structure and functions of the National Commission for Women. 15 Marks

The National Commission for Women (NCW), established in 1992 under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990. It is an advisory body dedicated to the protection and promotion of women’s rights in India. Its structure includes a chairperson, five members, and a member secretary appointed by the central government. The NCW reviews legislative measures, advises the government on women-related issues, and investigates specific cases of rights violations.

Its structure includes a chairperson, five members, and a member secretary, and it works on various issues ranging from legislative reviews to handling complaints related to gender-based violence. The NCW reviews and recommends legislative amendments for women’s protection, investigates gender-based violence complaints, promotes women’s participation, conducts awareness campaigns, and evaluates government policies. It also provides legal aid and collaborates with organizations for women’s empowerment.

According to its 2023 report, NCW handled over 34,000 complaints, highlighting its crucial role in addressing women’s grievances across the country.

The NCW’s key recommendations have led to significant legal reforms. For instance, it was instrumental in pushing for amendments to the Domestic Violence Act and the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, ensuring broader protection for women. In 2023, the NCW emphasized the need for gender budgeting to promote economic justice for women.

Kamla Bhasin has emphasized that “the NCW’s power lies in its ability to raise awareness and mobilize public opinion,” though critics argue that it lacks enforceable powers. Flavia Agnes point out the need for more autonomy and legal authority to make it more effective in safeguarding women’s rights.

Q6c. The legacy of the Planning Commission still has a bearing on India’s development policies. Discuss. 15 Marks

The Planning Commission, established in 1950, played a pivotal role in shaping India’s economic policies through the formulation of five-year plans. Its legacy continues to influence India’s development trajectory, even after its replacement by NITI Aayog in 2015. The Planning Commission’s state-led model emphasized industrialization, poverty alleviation, and regional balance, and many of these themes still resonate in contemporary policy-making.

NITI Aayog, while shifting to a more decentralized and market-driven approach, continues to uphold the legacy of the Planning Commission in certain key areas. For instance, initiatives like Aspirational Districts Programme, aimed at transforming underdeveloped regions, reflect the Planning Commission’s focus on balanced regional development. Similarly, programs like Ayushman Bharat for healthcare and the continued emphasis on social welfare schemes like PM-KISAN align with the Planning Commission’s vision of poverty alleviation and social equity.

Amartya Sen has praised the Planning Commission’s commitment to reducing inequality through welfare programs such as the Public Distribution System (PDS) and Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), which continue to shape India’s development agenda. On the other hand, economist Jagdish Bhagwati has critiqued the Planning Commission’s top-down approach for stifling private sector growth, and NITI Aayog’s focus on cooperative federalism and public-private partnerships is seen as a corrective measure.

Rajiv Kumar, former Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog, acknowledge that the Planning Commission laid the foundation for long-term developmental planning, which NITI Aayog has modernized by incorporating technology-driven initiatives and fostering competition between states. He remarks, “The transformation of the Planning Commission to NITI Aayog signifies the shift from a static, centralized model to a dynamic, federal one.”

In conclusion, while NITI Aayog has adopted a more flexible and decentralized approach, the core focus on regional development, poverty alleviation, and welfare programs—cornerstones of the Planning Commission’s legacy—continue to influence India’s policy-making, illustrating the enduring relevance of planned development.

Q7a. Discuss the contribution of the Dalit struggle to establish egalitarianism in Indian society during freedom movement. 20 Marks

The Dalit struggle during the freedom movement played a crucial role in shaping the discourse on egalitarianism in Indian society. While the mainstream freedom movement, led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi, focused on political independence from colonial rule, Dalit leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized the need for social justice and the annihilation of caste as integral to achieving true freedom. The Dalit movement sought not only political liberation but also social equality, challenging entrenched hierarchies that perpetuated discrimination and exclusion.

The Dalit struggle in the freedom movement ranged from complementing the national freedom movement to providing an alternative perspective to the mainstream freedom struggle.

Ambedkar’s criticism of the Congress leadership’s lack of commitment to Dalit issues was stark, as illustrated in his book What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables (1945). Ambedkar believed that political freedom was meaningless without ensuring equal rights for Dalits. He argued that “the freedom which the governing class in India was struggling for is freedom that rules the servile classes in India.” This criticism reflects the broader concern of Dalit leaders that the nationalist movement, dominated by upper-caste Hindus, did not address the socio-economic inequalities experienced by Dalits.

The Poona Pact of 1932 is a significant example of the Dalit struggle during the freedom movement. Ambedkar’s demand for separate electorates for Dalits was aimed at ensuring political representation for the oppressed. Although he was persuaded to accept reserved seats within joint electorates after negotiations with Gandhi, this moment highlighted the centrality of the Dalit cause in the larger freedom struggle.

Movements like the Depressed Classes Movement and the Self-Respect Movement in South India, led by Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, also contributed significantly to the fight for social equality. Periyar challenged Brahmanical dominance and emphasized self-respect and dignity for all, advocating for radical social reform.

Gail Omvedt has argued that the Dalit movement represented a “crucial expression of the democratic revolution in India,” more consistently democratic than the elite-controlled Congress. The support of a section of the Dalit intelligentsia for British rule was rooted in their distrust of upper-caste leaders who, they believed, were reluctant to share power with Dalits. For many Dalit leaders, without a social revolution that eradicated untouchability and provided equality, political change alone would further entrench upper-caste dominance.

Valerian Rodrigues further noted that Dalit-Bahujan thinkers like Periyar and Self-Respecters believed that true freedom would only be realized when untouchability was eradicated. Periyar argued that the liberation of Shudras was contingent on the liberation of the Panchamas (Dalits), thus linking the broader anti-caste struggle with the quest for national liberation.

The Dalit struggle had far-reaching impact on the freedom movement giving it egaliatraian character and also influencing the nature of society and polity for independent India. It culminated in the drafting of the Indian Constitution with provisions for affirmative action, the abolition of untouchability, and fundamental rights that guaranteed equality before the law. Ambedkar’s vision  that “We are not free unless we are socially free,” reflected that freedom from caste oppression was as important as freedom from colonial rule.

Q7b The blueprint of Gram Swaraj is the key to understand the Gandhian perspective on planning. Discuss. 15 Marks

Answer – The blueprint of Gram Swaraj forms the essence of Gandhi’s vision of decentralized planning, rooted in the idea of self-sufficient village republics. Gandhi believed that real freedom and development could be achieved only when villages were empowered to manage their own affairs, economically and socially. Gram Swaraj advocated for an egalitarian society where local communities could govern themselves, free from the control of external authorities, and focused on the holistic well-being of the individual and the community.

A key part of Gandhi’s planning philosophy was his theory of oceanic circles. He envisioned society as a series of expanding, concentric circles with the individual at the center, followed by family, village, district, province, and ultimately, the nation. Gandhi wrote, “In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual.” This structure reflects his belief that the strength of the nation lies in the empowerment of its smallest units—villages.

Political thinker Dharampal noted that Gandhi’s vision of Gram Swaraj “was not merely a program of economic reconstruction but a moral and social revolution,” emphasizing the role of villages as the fundamental units of development. Gandhi saw the village as a self-reliant, self-governing unit, where agriculture and cottage industries would sustain the economy.

In practice, Gandhi envisioned Gram Swaraj to promote small-scale industries like khadi, cottage industries, and organic agriculture, empowering rural economies. He was critical of large-scale industrialization, fearing it would lead to economic disparity and environmental degradation.

Historians like Ramachandra Guha have highlighted that Gandhi’s vision of decentralized planning was grounded in his belief in swaraj (self-rule), ahimsa (non-violence), and sustainability. The Sarvodaya movement, inspired by Gandhi, furthered this idea by advocating for rural upliftment and the integration of spiritual, economic, and social well-being.

Q7c. Critically assess the role of pressure groups in the decision-making process of the government. 15 Marks

Jean Blondel defines “pressure groups are organized bodies with shared interests which influence government policy without seeking to control political office.”

In India, pressure groups operate both formally and informally. Rajni Kothari argues that “pressure groups in India are diverse and dynamic, often reflecting the pluralistic nature of Indian society, where interests are varied and constantly evolving.” These groups operate in different ways, including lobbying, protests, advocacy, and public awareness campaigns. 

Prominent examples include the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI), the All India Kisan Sabha, and Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh. These groups exert influence on government decisions through lobbying, advocacy, and public campaigns. For instance, FICCI and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) have played crucial roles in influencing economic policies, particularly during the liberalization reforms of the 1990s, which led to the opening up of the Indian economy.

The farmers’ protests against the farm laws in 2020-2021 illustrate how pressure groups can challenge government policies. The protests, led by various farmer organizations like Samyukt Kisan Morcha, succeeded in forcing the government to repeal the controversial laws, demonstrating the power of collective action in shaping policy decisions.

D.L. Sheth highlighted that socio-economic inequalities often shape the role of pressure groups in India. He argued, “the effectiveness of pressure groups in India is contingent upon their access to resources, organizational strength, and the ability to mobilize public opinion.” Sheth noted that while some groups, like corporate lobbies, have greater influence due to their financial power, grassroots movements often face challenges in making their voices heard, despite having large public support.

Thus, as N. Jayapalan summarises, “The role of pressure groups in India highlights the strengths and limitations of democracy, where the challenge lies in balancing the influence of various interest groups to ensure that policy-making remains inclusive and equitable.”

Q8a. Discuss the role of environmental movements in shaping the environmental governance in India. 20 Marks

Answer – Environmental movements have played a pivotal role in shaping environmental governance in India by raising awareness, influencing policy decisions, and ensuring accountability in the protection of natural resources. These movements have evolved from localized struggles into broader advocacy efforts for sustainable development, thus shaping India’s environmental governance framework.

The Chipko Movement (1973), led by villagers in Uttarakhand, became one of the earliest environmental movements that significantly impacted India’s forest policy. By using non-violent methods to prevent deforestation, this movement led to increased awareness about the need for forest conservation. It eventually influenced the Indian government to introduce the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, aimed at preventing the indiscriminate use of forest land for non-forest purposes.

Environmental activist Vandana Shiva has argued that such movements are critical because they “challenge the dominant model of economic development that prioritizes profit over ecological sustainability.” Shiva’s work with the Navdanya movement has emphasized the importance of biodiversity and traditional farming methods, contributing to debates around agricultural sustainability in India.

Similarly, the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), led by Medha Patkar in the 1980s and 1990s, highlighted the displacement of tribal populations and ecological degradation. The movement brought environmental justice to the forefront of national discourse and led to establishing the National Rehabilitation Policy and more stringent environmental impact assessments.

Ramachandra Guha has highlighted that environmental movements in India often reflect a deep concern for social justice, arguing that “the poor and marginalized communities, who depend most directly on natural resources, are often the most vocal advocates for environmental protection.” This is evident in movements like Silent Valley and Save the Western Ghats, which combined ecological conservation with the fight for indigenous rights.

The influence of these movements has been critical in the development of laws like the Environment Protection Act (1986) and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010, which were established to safeguard environmental rights and provide a legal mechanism for redressal.

Ramachandra Guha thus describes Indian environmental movements as “environmentalism of the poor,” arguing that “these movements are not primarily about the protection of nature in the abstract, but about the rights of communities to access resources vital for their survival.” This perspective explains why movements like Chipko and Narmada Bachao Andolan are focused on both ecological conservation and the displacement and exploitation of marginalized groups.

Q8b. “Relative deprivation is a major source of ethnic conflict.” Elaborate the statement with relevant examples. 15 Marks

Relative deprivation, as outlined by sociologist Ted Robert Gurr, refers to the perceived discrepancy between what people believe they deserve and what they actually receive. This gap often leads to frustration, resentment, and ultimately ethnic conflict, as groups feel marginalized in comparison to others. Gurr famously argued in Why Men Rebel that “the greater the gap between expectations and reality, the more likely a group is to rebel.” Ethnic groups, when deprived of political power, economic opportunities, or social recognition, frequently mobilize to assert their demands, leading to unrest.

In India, relative deprivation among ethnic groups is often felt on grounds of economic disparity, political underrepresentation, and cultural marginalization. Ashutosh Varshney has highlighted that “ethnic conflicts are more likely when there is a significant disparity in access to resources and political power between different groups,” underscoring the role of relative deprivation in fueling ethnic tensions.

For example, the tribal communities in the Northeast feel deprived due to limited economic development and autonomy, the Sikh community during the Khalistan movement perceived political marginalization, and linguistic groups like the Tamils have experienced cultural and identity-based grievances. These deprivations often result in ethnic mobilization and conflict.

The consequences of these ethnic conflicts have been significant. Politically, they led to the reorganization of states, such as Mizoram and Nagaland, granting greater autonomy to ethnic groups. Administratively, the Indian state has adopted a mix of military suppression and negotiated settlements. For instance, the signing of peace accords like the Mizo Accord (1986) and the ongoing Naga peace talks demonstrate India’s approach of combining political engagement with state control to address ethnic grievances.

Atul Kohli highlights that “the Indian state has managed ethnic conflicts by creating a decentralized framework where regional autonomy is accommodated within the national framework.” However, critics argue that economic disparities and lack of development continue to fuel grievances. Thus, the need for inclusive development policies and balancing the interests of various ethnic groups remain relevant.

Q8c. Gram Sabha in the Panchayati Raj system is a forum which gives expression to the collective wisdom, aspirations and the will of the people. Comment. 15 Marks

The Gram Sabha in the Panchayati Raj system serves as a critical forum that embodies the principles of grassroots democracy, offering citizens a platform to express their collective wisdom, aspirations, and will. As the foundation of local self-governance, the Gram Sabha comprises all eligible voters in a village who meet periodically to discuss and decide on various local issues, making it a direct expression of participatory democracy.

Mahatma Gandhi envisioned Gram Swaraj—self-governance through village assemblies—as the true essence of democracy, where decisions are made collectively by the people rather than imposed from above. The Gram Sabha fulfills this vision by giving villagers direct control over local development, resource allocation, and social welfare initiatives. According to political thinker Dharampal, “the Gram Sabha is not just an administrative body; it is a space for people’s participation and empowerment.”

The Gram Sabha’s role, as envisioned in the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act (1992), is crucial for transparency and accountability in local governance. It has the authority to approve plans and budgets prepared by the Panchayat, monitor the functioning of elected representatives, and ensure that local development aligns with the community’s needs. Rajni Kothari emphasized that “the Gram Sabha is where democracy is deepened by involving people directly in decision-making processes at the local level.”

In practice, Gram Sabhas have contributed significantly to enhancing accountability and addressing issues like rural development, social justice, and local infrastructure. However, challenges like low participation, lack of awareness, and elite dominance sometimes undermine its potential.