Category: Political Science Notes

Gandhi on State and Violence:

In Gandhi’s assessment, the state (Western type) was the symbol of violence in concentrated form. In order to ensure allegiance from the citizens the state (which means its authority) applies coercion or violent measures mercilessly.

Once he said “the individual has a soul but the state is a soulless machine, the stale can never be weaned away from violence to which it owes its existence”. In other words, Gandhi treated both state and violence or coercion synonymous. He further says that there is a state but not violence or coercion in any form cannot be imagined.

He gathered experience in South Africa that more and more power to the state meant more and more violence or greater amount of coercion. In the name of the maintenance of law and order the South Africa’s white government acquired enormous power and this led to the ruthless administration, exploitation and curtailment of individuals’ liberty.

He once said that a political organisation based on violence would never receive his approval. Rather, he is always afraid of such an organisation. What he felt about the Western state system is quite explicit in a comment which he made, “I look upon an increase in the power of the state with greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimising exploi­tation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which is at the root of progress”.

From the above analysis it is absolutely clear that Gandhi rejected the state of Western model on the ground that it represented violence or coercion. Now the question is why did he oppose violence so much? The modern state, according to Gandhi, was about to destroy individuality—that individual freedom and spontaneous urge to work.

Secondly, the individualism is the root cause of progress. Gandhi believed that nothing could be done by applying coercion. Again, the individual cannot be forced to do any work against his will or spontaneous desire. To put it in other words, according to Gandhi the progress of the society can be achieved through the functions which the individuals perform willingly.

Here Gandhi appears to us as a great individualist philosopher. The two great utilitarian philosophers—Bentham (1748-1832) and J. S. Mill (1806-1872)—wanted to put curb upon the activities of the state to enhance the quantum of freedom of the individuals. The state, prescribed by Bentham and Mill, is called limited state. Both Bentham and J. S. Mill did not approve coercion for demanding allegiance from the individual’s.

But Gandhi appears to us as more aggressive. Under any circumstances the individual’s freedom cannot be sacrificed. Gandhi’s love for individual’s freedom ranks him with the great anarchist philosophers (we shall discuss his anarchism later on). The central idea is that to Gandhi state is an undesirable political organisation because of its close connection with violence.

Gandhi on Legislature:

Since Gandhi had no faith on state which is an embodiment of violence and coercion, he did not support any other branch of this political organisation. Let us take parliament or legislature which is one of the three branches of government. His vitriolic tirade against British parliament is a source of amusement to many.

But let us see what he said about the British parliament. He said that the British parliament is the mother of all parliaments. But this parliament, on its own accord, has not performed a single good work. Though it is headed by renowned persons like Balfour or Asquith, the work is not praiseworthy at all.

So this parliament is like a sterile woman. Prof. Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyay in his noted work—Social and Political Thought of Gandhi calls this harsh statement of Gandhi “a youthful exaggeration”. He subsequently revised his opinion about the importance of parliament.

He later on said that the legislatures of today perform useful jobs. No attempt should be made to destroy them. He believed that the present legislatures were better than old legislatures. The first comment about the sterility of British parliament was the outburst of emotion. The second one was the expression of real situation. In the second half of thirties of the last century Gandhi fully realised the utility of legislature consisting of people’s representatives.

Sovereignty of State:

Gandhi was not interested at all in building up a comprehensive and well-argued political theory. He was a mass leader, philosopher and freedom fighter. On various issues and situations he expressed opinions which constitute certain aspects of political theory and state sovereignty is such a theory. In Western political thought, state sovereignty is a much talked theory and large number of scholars and philosophers has dealt with this concept. Bodin and Hobbes are chief among them.

In general terms, sovereignty means the supreme coercive power of the state. We have already mentioned that Gandhi strongly objected to this power because supreme coercive power usurps individual’s liberty in a ruthless way. Sovereignty receives allegiance by force. Such a power of the state, it is needless to say, cannot get approval of Gandhi. The Zulu “rebellion” of South Africa moved his mind and thought immensely.

The South African government released a reign of terror and torture upon the innocent people of Zulu and the state authority exercised sovereign power. It was unimaginable to Gandhi that a so-called civilised government could be so much cruel, so much soulless. So he concluded that sovereignty was nothing but the application of coercive power by that state and hence such a power could never constitute the basis of a non-violent state organisation.

In the Western political thought sovereignty has two forms—monastic theory of sovereignty and pluralist theory of sovereignty. Though the latter form insists upon giving more freedom and autonomy to individuals and organisation, ultimately the state will have freedom and authority to use coercive power. Naturally even the pluralist approach of sovereignty failed to impress Gandhi. To conclude, both forms of sovereignty failed to create a favourable impact upon the mind of Gandhi.

Gandhi also viewed sovereignty in the light of morality. He disapproved sovereignty on the ground that it was the usurper of individual’s morality. If an individual refuses to show obligation to the state, it is admitted, he has that freedom and he should be allowed to do that. But if sovereign power forces him to act according to the direction (of sovereignty) that invariably violates morality.

It is also immoral to force a man to support an immoral, unlawful act. If the sovereignty commits an immoral act or is involved in unlawful activities it cannot expect to get support from rational citizens and in that case if the sovereignty claims allegiance by coercive way that can also be treated as immoral. Individual is governed by morality and conscience and his obligation to these only and not to any organisation or person.

Though, in general view, sovereignty is a political concept, Gandhi did not admit its dissociation from ethics, morality and other universal ideals and values. For this reason the general view of sovereignty was not acceptable to him.

Popular Sovereignty:

“Gandhi was an ardent advocate not of traditional state sovereignty but of popular sovereignty strongly advocated by one of the social contract theoreticians.” J. J. Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau wanted to introduce popular sovereignty of the Greek city-state in his home state. In the scheme of Rousseau’s popular sovereignty the citizens had the opportunity to assemble in open places periodically and to participate in the variety of fu
nctions of state. Gandhi contemplated the same type of popular sovereignty for India.

He thought that after freedom rights would be restored to the people and they would have freedom to participate in all affairs of state, particularly those affairs with which they are intimately related. He did not consider sovereignty as a resident of ivory tower. But it resides among the people and people themselves exercise the supreme power.

In fact, Gandhi did not think of imposing of any decision upon the citizens against their wishes. Here we add that so far as liberty, right, democracy, sovereignty etc. are concerned Gandhi comes very closer to Rousseau than many other philosophers of the Western world. Like J. S. Mill and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) Gandhi was not an uncompromising individu­alist because he admitted the utility of state. But he did not support the emasculation of state like the anarchists. To sum up, Gandhi stands between Herbert Spencer and the advocates of monastic theory of sovereignty.

State and Society:

Though Gandhi does not deal with society and its relationship with state it is not difficult to frame certain conclusions about his attitude to society keeping his general outlook and philosophy in mind. His inordinate love for liberty rights of the individual and democracy and strong opposition to violence and coercion make it abundantly clear that he stressed more importance on society and less importance to state.

In his judgment society is the best place for the free play of individual’s opinion, in society people enjoy freedom of speech and expression and mainly in society individuals get ample opportunities to mould and remould their views This is due to the fact that the area of state is vast and always it is not suitable for individual’s tree and spontaneous activities.

A very considerable part of Gandhi’s philosophy is covered by satyagraha and non-violence. People, in the opinion of Gandhi, can start Satyagraha and non-violence against the state because the state is the usurper of liberty and encroacher of rights these people do form a platform which is, for all practical purposes, society.

Since individual s relationship with society is direct, it is more important to them People from their views about morality, ethics, ideals and many other eternal values as members of society.

In Hegelian philosophy the society had no special importance but Gandhi did not share this view. In his political philosophy absolute sovereignty had no place—naturally society was more important. Gandhi’s glorification of society may be treated from another perspective. He believed that through the society people can develop their individuality properly. In his account state is to some extent foreign to the individuals. Not only Gandhi many others have been found to think in the same time.

State and Ram Raj: Definition and Nature:

Prof. Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyay has defined Ram Raj (literally Divine Rule) in the following words: “It is possible to distinguish between two levels of the social and political thought of Gandhi-the ideal and the practical.

The former, represented by a form of pure anarchy called Ram Raj by Gandhi, embodies the maximum social consummation of the ultimate values of non-violence, Freedom and Equality The practical social ideal, derived from the sum total of Gandhi’s practical ideas resembles…… a form of liberalism, socialism and embodies relative non-violence’ freedom and equality”. Nonviolence, brotherhood is also important elements of Ram Raj about which Gandhi spoke a lot.

From the above definition we derive several aspects of Ram Raj. One is it is a type of Divine Rule. In the Ramayana, we come to know that Ram established a kingdom based on equality, freedom and justice. But when he used the word Rama he did not specially refer to Rama of our great epic Ramayana.

Rama or Rahim were of equal importance to him. By Ram Raj is meant sovereignty of people on pure moral authority. In Ram Raj there shall exist a maximum amount of consummation (perfect relationship) between equality, liberty and morality of the people Ram Ka; can also be identified with sacrifice on the parts of both ruler and the ruled.

In Ram Raj the king/ruler will rule the kingdom not for his personal benefit or gratification but for the general upliftment of all categories of citizens. His Ram Rai­ls identified with the highest form of common good, morality and justice.

Ram Raj is an ideal social order based on equality, liberty and non-violence. The Ram Raj is amoral Political organisation and it resembles Plato’s ideal state and Rousseau’s moral public person. Needless to say that Rousseau being influenced by Plato contemplated a political organisation (which we call state) to be based on certain universal values such as idealism, morality etc. Plato also spoke of a justice and his theory of justice is still classic. Gandhi also wanted to build up the foundation of his Ram Raj on the universal principles including justice.

An important aspect of Gandhi’s Ram Raj is he has combined politics with ethics and morality. Gandhi clearly disowned the Machiavellian concept of separation of politics from morality and religion. He was firmly convinced that only the amalgam­ation of politics with religion and morality could provide a perfect social order.

Again, he did not treat Rama or Ram Raj in the light of Hinduism. The Hindu fundamentalists have very often misinterpreted Gandhi’s Ram Raj primarily as a Hindu concept. But in fact this is not so. He frequently warned us of the aspect of his Ram Raj, Gandhi never preached religious division of society.

Though he was an orthodox Hindu he always cherished religious toleration and to him all the religious sects were equally important. Ram Raj is also the symbol of impartiality and the term impartiality is to be interpreted broadly. The state must treat all persons irrespective of their faith and belief equally and try to achieve welfare objectives for all. This is the brief interpretation of Gandhi’s Ram Raj.

Democracy and States:

Any analysis of Gandhian theory of state is bound to be incomplete without any reference to democracy because he imagined of a state which must be democratic. Hence his state is from top to bottom democratic. We shall never be able; it is warned here, to reach a clear conception about democracy if we start to study it in light of Western idea of democracy. Gandhi viewed democracy not simply as a political concept.

A true democracy can be set up only when India will achieve Swaraj. A foreign-ruled state cannot have a democracy. There is a second aspect of Gandhi’s view about democracy. It must be associated with truth and non-violence. People can never set up a democratic structure with violent means and untruthful ways. Only authoritarian regimes resort to violence and untruthful means. So there is an inherent contradiction between democracy and violence.

In order to be democratic a state must create a congenial atmosphere for the proper development of freedom and rights. Gandhi, we come to know from his writings, is very much sensitive about freedom. He believed that ii freedom is lost the entire individuality is also lost.

Only Swaraj can ensure true democracy and in such a system there can exist freedom. There is still another point. If individuals feel that they are deprived of freedom they can fight to gain it in non-violent ways.

The most important elements of Gandhi’s concept of democracy are: participation of men in the affairs of state, people’s right to protest the immoral and anti-people’s acts of government, nonviolence, people’s right to choose their own ways and prevalence of justice and equality.

State and Decentralisatio
n:

The Gandhian theory of state is based not only on the principles of freedom, non-violence, morality, justice and truth but also on decentralisation. To him swaraj and democracy are synonymous but decentralisation of power must be the basic part of democracy.

In Greek city-states there was a system of decentralising the political power. In the writings of Rousseau we get support for decentralisation of power. Of course, Rousseau did not directly deal with this concept but his advocacy for open assembly concept provides a basis for decentralisation.

In modern constitutional, system, decentralisation is stressed. But Gandhi’s decentralisation has a different character. Through the decentralisation of political power individuals will get full scope to participate in the affairs of state and they can do it absolutely in non-violent way. Again, decentralisation is the best means for the realisation of all democratic rights and freedoms.

So, without decentralisation all these will remain distant hopes. Coercion and violence are associated with centralisation. Authority receives or want to receive allegiance from the citizens by means of coercive measures. But decentralisation means people will act everything on their own volition. Through decentralisation men will be able to develop their various faculties.

Thus, we find that in Gandhian perspective state, democracy, freedom, participation and non-violence all are closely connected. Gandhi’s decentralisation can be stated in the following phrase: expansion of democracy upto the grass-root level. Democracy without decentralisation is practically an impossible concept.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Rights in Political Theory:

The rights of human beings or the rights of the individuals have long been a subject of political theory. If we look at the history of western political thought we shall find that in ancient Greek city-states the rights as such had no existence.

But the ruling class and upper classes of the city-states were not unaware of rights and this is manifest from the concept of citizenship. In the city-states only a handful of persons were fortunate to be citizens and they enjoyed certain privileges which were rights. The vast majority of the population were not citizens and had no rights.

The concept of rights first appeared in the theory of natural law which existed in the state of nature. In the state of nature people enjoyed certain rights sanctioned by natural law. The natural law, in fact, ruled the society and nobody had any power to violate the natural rights and natural law. It was also maintained that both natural law and natural rights were based on morality.

In other words, both were moral order. Any human authority, what we now calls state or government, had no power to curtail the natural rights or interfere with the natural law. In this way concept of rights came to be associated with political theory because state or government was the part of politics.

The social contract theory makes a distinct contribution to making rights as part of political theory. It was assumed that the people of the state of nature, by virtue of the prevalence of natural law, enjoyed natural rights. But due to certain unavoidable circumstances (the control of which was beyond their ability) they could not make proper utilisation of these rights.

A decision was taken that a civil authority was to be set up whose, inter alia, function would be to take steps for the protection of the natural rights. This approach received further importance in the hands of Locke who assumed that rights were to be viewed in the context of civil society. The main function of the authority of civil society is to protect the rights.

Though natural rights were able to draw attention of large number of people but it received a setback at the hands of utilitarians and Marxists. “Historically, the doctrine of natural rights has suffered from the vagaries of political and intellectual fashion. It was popular in the seventeenth century but suffered at the hands of the utilitarians and Marxists”.

The utilitarian philosopher had no faith on the theory of natural rights. Every right must be viewed in the background of society, state and politics. The utilitarians thus made rights as part of the state. They also thought that it was the duty of state to protect rights or to make arrangements for the protection of the rights.

The Marxists have stepped forward. Rights can only be understood within the context of particular economic and social circumstances. With the rise of the complexities of social structure, its administration and the relation between individuals and state, rights ultimately became integral parts of political theory and prime concern of the state. Specially the latter was the consequence of the rapid growth of democracy.

Today we cannot separate rights from state and politics. The intimate relationship between right, state and law was stridently argued by the philosophers of utilitarianism and this approach laid the foundation of the concept- rights and political theory. From the middle of the nineteenth century this tendency has become prevalent.

Definitions of Rights:

There are many definitions of rights and for our purpose some are stated. One such definition is rights are legal or moral recognition of choices or interests to which particular weight is attached. A person is faced with a number of alternatives or choices and he is to select one or two of them.

This freedom is the central idea of rights. The individual shall have the full freedom to select the required number of alternatives. The system of rights therefore denotes “some sort of distribution of freedom” (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics).

The second definition is that rights can be called justified and recognised expectation. It is justified in the sense that when one claims rights there shall be sufficient justification behind the claims and, at the same time, the claims should be recognised. The claims have been termed by L. T. Hobhouse as expectation. It is so people expect them for their betterment. Justification and recognition have landed the expectation (or rights) on a different level. A man’s expectation for ethical right cannot come under the purview of political science.

Thirdly, T. H. Green defines rights in the light of idealism since he was the doyen of English idealist philosophy. He defines the concept of rights: “The capacity on the part of the individual of conceiving a good as the same for himself and others and of being determined to action by that conception is foundation of rights, and rights are the condition of that capacity being realised. No right is justifiable or should be a right except on the ground that directly or indirectly it serves this purpose”.

Andrew Heywood (Political Theory) calls rights as entitlements (emphasis added). Rights are entitlements to act or be treated in a particular way. Modern political thinkers are accustomed to treat rights mainly as entitlements. It is a type of entitlement in the sense that an individual has rights means that he is entitled to have something.

In the present day situation rights have been regarded as rational claims. The environmentalists have challenged the traditional concept of rights. They forcefully argue that every claim made by the individuals must be based on rationality. Human beings cannot kill animals indiscriminately or destroy forest for their own benefit.

These two acts may satisfy their needs but at the same time the killing of animals or destroying forest shall cause an imbalance in nature and ultimately society and succeeding generations will suffer. So the idea of entitlement shall be viewed from modern and wider perspective.

Again, in the age of globalisation the concept of rights is to be properly viewed. While claiming to enjoy rights one must see that whether that claim is about to jeopardies the interests of the other people of the globe. Hence the narrow concept of rights, in modern day, is irrelevant.

Nature of Rights:

There are several features of rights as a concept of political theory:

(1) Norman Barry uses a new term which he calls claim-rights. Let us quote him: “In the more usual sense of the word right it is understood as a type of claim. Claim-rights entitle their holder to limit the liberty of another person.

A has a right against B, deriving either from moral or legal rule, which puts B under a duty. It is not the moral quality of act that entitles A to limit B’s liberty but simply the fact that he possesses the rights……… Claim-rights possessed by persons are quite different from favours or concessions granted to individuals by authorities”.

The claim-rights do not depend upon the mercy of another person. For one reason or other individuals claim rights which means that others will not create any obstructions on the way of enjoying the claim-rights. The implication of this right is individuals claim-right on the ground that the rights are indispensable for the development of personality and the authority is bound to provide such right.

(2) Right is viewed in the sense of liberty, right is liberty. There is a general and popular view that rights imply duties. A man cannot claim/demand rights if he does not perform duties. Rights, in this sense, are correlative to duties or functions. But when rights are interpreted in the background of liberty the doing of duty does not aris
e at all.

For example, an individual has right of the freedom of speech means that the individual has liberty to open his mouth and mind and if he does so he will face no problem. When rights are understood as liberties, the possession of rights by one person does not entail the restrictions on liberty of another or in the sense of being under a correlative duty. This concept of right denies the traditional relation between right and duty.

(3) Identification of rights as special claims is another characteristic feature of rights. In the period of monarchical absolutism people claimed the right to freedom of speech because it was drastically curtailed by the absolute kings. Not only freedom of speech, but also freedom of thought and action were demanded by people.

In the middle Ages there were conflicts among the various religious groups and in that period many people claimed the right to practise any religious belief and faith. In the nineteenth century, individualism dominated the political scene and rights were viewed negatively. The state interference with the individual’s affairs shall be minimum.

It was the negative approach to rights. In the modern age positive ideas cloaked the idea of rights. It means that Individuals will enjoy rights but at the same time the state should do for the realisation of welfare objectives. It was also felt that this could be done by both the state and the general public. Both should act in tandem.

(4) Sometimes it has been found that there are rights for few and rights for many. For example, the revolutionaries of American Revolution and French Revolution demanded that they were fighting for the general rights of general public.

But after the revolutions it was found that only limited people were able to enjoy the rights. In all class societies only handful of persons enjoys all sorts of rights and majority is deprived of basic rights. In many states special rights are recognised for particular sections of people.

For example, in India the scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and other backward classes enjoy special rights and Constitution recognises these special provisions. We may call this system as special rights for special classes. Side by side there are general rights for general classes or all persons of the state.

(5) Rights are very important no doubt, but individuals alone and without any help from the state cannot enjoy rights. The state must create an atmosphere in which all the individuals will have opportunities to enjoy rights. But the state can do this only on condition that the rights are recognised by the state. Whether the state recognises or not rights are always rights. But this is the conceptual sense of rights.

In reality, people will be in a position to enjoy rights if the state comes forward for their realisation. No rights can exist beyond the jurisdiction of state. People of the state of nature had natural rights, but all of them had not the opportunities to enjoy rights because the state of nature had no enforcing organ.

Recognition of rights by the state has opened the scope of lot of discussion. Why should the state recognise rights? What rights are recognised? Should rights depend on the recognition of state? All these show that recognition by the state is a complicated issue.

(6) For the enforcement of rights law is essential. The state is the enforcing authority and law is the mechanism or instrument. State takes precautionary measures with the help of law. This rights, law and state are all interlinked. In respect of law and right-law performs a double function. It protects the right of some and prevents others from interfering with the rights enjoyed, by others.

Different Aspects of Rights:

Natural Rights:

The concept of natural rights was elaborately treated by two contract philoso­phers—Hobbes and Locke in their works. We can define it in the following way: “Rights which persons possess by nature that is without the intervention of the agreement, or in the absence of political and legal institution” (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics).

The individuals can have such rights irrespective of time and place. Therefore, time, place, agreement and authority are not the determining factors of the character of natural rights. In the state of nature people had such rights.

Hobbes and Locke concluded that the natural rights, most important of all things of the state of nature, faced serious problems and even their protection was at jeopardy. These two philosophers were determined to protect them and for that reason they devised a mechanism—formation of civil society which will have full power and authority to protect them.

Some thinkers believe that natural rights are some sort of moral rights in the sense that they do not depend for their validity on the enforcement of a legal system. They are a special type of moral rights. Any agreement or authority is not the source of natural rights. Again, such rights need not be recognised by the state because they existed before the origin of state.

Bentham could not tolerate the natural rights. He called them nonsensical. According to Bentham it is impossible to speak of rights without enforceable duties and also recognition. From the history of political thought we come to know that natural rights dominated the political thought and utilitarianism stopped it.

Bill of Rights:

The bill of rights forms a very important part in the history of rights of man and the origin of the bill of rights can be traced to the famous Magna Carta (1215). The bill of rights in general and Magna Carta in particular is a statement of rights of man. Clause 39 of the Magna Carta is very important.

It states: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed or outlawed or banished or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”. Though Magna Carta laid the foundation of bill of rights in England, it was not in the strictest sense the bill of rights; it was an agreement between King John and his barons.

The real origin of the bill of rights is the Act of Parliament of Britain which was passed in 1689 and with which John Locke was closely associated. The Bill of Rights enacted by the British Parliament was primarily concerned with the curtailment of royal prerogatives and asserting the right of legislature. It was also concerned with certain rights of the individuals. The Bill of Rights sought to protect certain basic rights for the common people.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) was another landmark event in the history of the rights of man. It was designed to provide some basic rights to man. The Preamble to the French Constitution of 1946 incorporated the rights of man. The first ten amendments of the American Constitution enshrined the rights of man.

Subsequently many constitutions incorpo­rated the rights of man. The inclusion of certain basic rights into the constitutions has earned increasing popularity due to the reasons that people are claiming such rights and the U. N. Charter has strongly emphassied that men irrespective of sex, religion and language must enjoy basic human rights.

Fundamental Rights:

The words fundamental rights are quite well known and after the Second World War these two words have received wide publicity. Many countries have incorporated the rights of man of the French Constitution or the rights of the Bill of Rights of 1689 or the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Almost all the constitutions (which have adopted rights as part of the constitution) call fundamental rights. The same rights are called fundamental in the sense that these rights are inviolable or cannot be violated simply to satisfy the ne
eds or whims of a section of government or population.

The idea of fundamental, inviolable rights is rooted in the Magna Carta. Bill of Rights passed by the British Parliament and the declaration of Rights of Man. From the progress of society and course of history it became crystal clear that certain rights are indeed fundamental or indispensable for the development of personality and inherent qualities of man.

The purpose of incorporating these rights into the constitution is that rights need to be protected by the state and if these rights are not made parts of the constitution their proper protection will not be ensured. There is a subtle difference between rights in general sense and the fundamental rights.

All sorts of rights are not included into the fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are also called basic rights. Citizens also came to know what are their rights. The term fundamental is not rigid at all. A right is fundamental in one state and the same right is not fundamental in another state. For example, right to work is a fundamental right in a socialist state but not in a capitalist state.

Human Rights:

Definition of Human Rights:

Besides fundamental rights, natural rights and bill of rights there is another right which is called human rights. Human rights are not, so to speak, basically different from general category of rights. While analysing the nature of rights we had the opportunity to throw light on the idea that rights can practically come to be meaningless if they are not recognised and state authority does not take any step for their protection.

Naturally the intervention of state appears to be inevitable for the realisation of rights, but this need not be the case. Any human being as a part of humanity is entitled to have certain rights and the state must take necessary steps for their protection. From this idea emanates the concept of human rights.

We here quote Heywood’s definition of human rights: “Human rights are rights to which people are entitled by virtue of being human. They are, therefore, universal rights in the sense that they belong to all human beings rather than to members of any particular nation, race, religion, gender, social class or whatever”.

In a slightly different way Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics has defined it: Human rights are a special sort of moral entitlement. They attach to all men equally simply by virtue of their humanity irrespective of race, nationality or membership of particular social group. They specify the minimum conditions for human dignity and a tolerable life.

Nature of Human Rights:

1. Human rights are called moral entitlements. As a part of the whole humanity every human being is entitled to certain rights and no authority under the sun can deprive him of these basic rights. Naturally, any attempt to deprive man of his share to rights is immoral. The entitlement concept of rights was first stressed by the great architects of American constitution and they were inspired by Locke.

2. The human rights originated from the concept of natural rights. From the social contract theory we come to know that in the state of nature people enjoyed some rights which were neither recognised nor protected by the state since there was no such institution in the state of nature. Nevertheless, there were rights which people enjoyed. But the scope of enjoyment of rights was extremely limited because of the non-availability of an efficient and wide infrastructure.

The natural rights, however, made no distinction of race, religion etc. Human rights are the latest offshoots of the old natural rights. Like natural rights human rights also do not make any discrimination in regard to race, sex, religion, language etc.

3. Human rights have also a slight relationship with the idea of religion or God. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US political philosopher and statesman, believed that rights were originated from God or religion. Subsequently when the belief in God became very feeble and sometimes became non-existent the concept of right assumed different dimensions.

Ultimately rights were made universalised and attempts were made to keep rights outside the power of the state to recognise rights. But the state must have power to protect rights. The latest development of rights is really remar­kable. It does not give any emphasis on the recognition aspect which is performed by the state. But the state must have to take action for protection.

4. Some want to delineate the human rights as fundamental. Heywood writes: “Human rights are also fundamental in that they are inalienable, they cannot be traded away or revoked”. This is a very important feature of human rights. This has been stated in many places such as American Declaration of Independence (1776). The revolutionaries of France also declared that any individual had the right to enjoy those rights which were essential for the development of personality and good qualities.

5. The absoluteness of human rights has also been amply stressed by many. These rights are such in nature that they have obliterated the differences of geographical boundaries, language, race and religion. All men of all countries have been created by the same creator and for that very reason there shall not be any distinction among men on the ground of race, religion etc. No state can deprive an individual of the human rights. Time and place are not important in so far as human rights are concerned.

The concept of human rights, some well-known scholars assert, owes a lot for its origin to the Christianity because Christianity propagated that God is the creator of all human beings and so all of them must enjoy rights. It was not the intention of God to make distinction. Man cannot do it.

6. A very important feature of human rights is these rights challenge the state sovereignty and power to recognise or not to recognise rights of individuals. The state may have power not to recognise rights but this power is inapplicable to human rights. On the contrary, the state will have to take all steps for the realisation of the rights and enhancement of their periphery. Periphery is in the sense that large number of people is to be brought under the rights.

Categories of Human Rights:

Though the two words human rights are comparatively of recent origin the rights included under this head are not of recent origin. Even the rights contemplated by Locke or Jefferson have found place in human rights.

For example, Locke’s right to life, liberty and property or Jefferson’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are treated as parts of human rights. So originally civil rights such as life, liberty and freedom from torture were human rights.

In the next phase some political and economic rights were included into the human rights which the earlier thinkers, could not think. This change was chiefly due to the change in the outlook and change the material condition of society. Progress of democracy and growing inequalities among different classes led many to think of the assertion of political and economic rights.

This was especially evident in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Western Europe. The growth of capitalism made a section of men rich and other poor. The latter, for obvious reason, demanded greater share of wealth and income.

Next we find that economic, political, social and other rights were not considered sufficient in the growing complexities of society. People began to claim rights relating to peace, development and humanitarianism. The sufficiency of wealth or its adequate distribution was not thought enough, more was required.

Assessment:

Several questions have been raised against human rights. In the first place, it is asked who is a human being? At what age this status is achieved? There is no satisfactory reply. All persons of all age cannot claim to be human being. A child of three ye
ars cannot be regarded as a human being and, if so, he is not entitled to rights. From no corner the answer to this question has yet been received. If human being begins at embryo then it can be said that abortion or killing of embryo is an offence because many religions treat life as sacred.

Secondly, if life constitutes the basis of rights, then the animals must have the right to life and killing of animals by men should be prohibited. There is no solution to this problem. Men are killing animals indiscriminately.

There is a third problem. The human rights are universal but not the human beings. Women in some sense enjoy rights which are different from men’s. But we do not say women’s rights. Women have maternity leave and it is their right, men have not.

Fourthly, it is not possible to bring both men and women under one umbrella because women have special problems and capacities, not only they have special role in families. So all men and women cannot be brought under the category of human rights. For all these reasons human rights concept is self-defeating. Society cannot treat all equally and discrimination is bound to arise.

Notwithstanding these problems the demand for and importance of human rights have not declined. Rather both are rising. Human rights activists throughout the world have focused their eagle’s eye on the realisation of human rights. Several international organisations have been found to be active.

Rights and Multiculturalism:

In the second half of the twentieth century rights have been found to be entangled with completely new developments and the most important of them is multi­culturalism. In the sixties of the last century the black people of the USA launched a movement in support of their various rights particularly to assert their distinctiveness from the white population. They agitated to establish their identity in respect of culture.

They demanded that the black people are different from white people and their identity and distinction shall be recognised. This, the black people said, was their right which must be recognised by the U.S. government and the government must allow them to cultivate this separate culture or civilisation.

“Multiculturalism reflects most broadly, a positive endorsement of communal diversity, usually arising from racial, ethnic and language differences. As such, multiculturalism is a more distinctive political stance than a coherent and programmic doctrine”.

Multiculturalism demanded that each separate group of men shall be allowed to practise its ethnic, religious, cultural, language identities and, when allowed to do so, it will enrich the group. It is the right of the group and none has any right to deny it. This finally leads to the idea of minority rights or multicultural rights.

These rights include right to representation, right to religious practise, right to work according to culture. The concept of multiculturalism gained popularity in the 1960s and 1970s not only in the USA but even in many states of the Third World. It was the consequence not only of the intensification of democratic feeling but also of the interference of outside forces whose objective was to fuel and instigate divisive tendency.

The supporters of multiculturalism demand that ethnic, religious or cultural group has its own rights. When the group gets the proper opportunities to development that will ensure the progress of the group. It is because of the fact that the interplay among the various cultural groups brings about vibrancy and richness. Suppression, on the other hand, invites animosity and bitterness.

In several parts of the world men of various ethnic and religious groups have been agitating for the recognition of their cultural, ethnic and religious rights. They demand it as their democratic right. We admit that every group has the right to lead life according to its separate identity.

But the problem is in a multicultural state this becomes the source of separatism and parochialism. Large number of states, today, is under the grip of multicultural agitation and thus very often assumes the militancy and creates numerous problems for the civil government. Every ethnic, cultural or religious group, it is admitted, has the right to self-determination.

But from history we have received this lesson that balkanisation of a state (or nation-state) has never been able to solve the basic problems, rather it has aggravated the relations among different groups. We finally hold the view that an individual or a group can claim to have a right but it is up to the civil authority to recognise it or not.

Multicultural rights are not generally encouraged because of its tendency to divide a political unit. But unfortunately the different multicultural groups are, in different parts of the globe, agitating for more rights which are not always justified.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Definition of the Concept:

The concept of justice is as old as the political science or political theory is and at the same time it is a vexed and controversial topic of political science. The political philosophers beginning from Plato (427 BC-347 BC) right up to the twenty-first century, the theory has been defined in various ways.

The dictionary meanings or definitions are the following: Justice means just behaviour or treatment or the administration of law or authority in maintaining this. But this laconic definition fails to clarify the exact idea it carries. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics defines justice as the existence of a proper balance. Even this definition is still unsatisfactory. Proper balance between what elements or what sectors?

An acceptable definition we find in Norman Barry’s An Introduction to Modern Political Theory. Barry observes: In ordinary speech generally we talk of justice and injustice where the words do not refer to the desirability or otherwise of the state of affairs or particular income and wealth distributions but to the rules and procedures that characterise social practices and which are applied to the action of individuals who participate in those practices.

In this conception justice is normally seen to be a property of individuals. Barry’s definition, strictly speaking, is not a definition it is an explanation of the concept. He is of opinion that it is a property of the individuals. But we hold the view that it is not simply the property of individuals but also a property of state or society. It is because very often justice is regarded as the symbol of state and it is the primary responsibility of state to ensure justice. F

So in commonsense the term denotes appropriateness or fairness or proper balance. Opportunities and rewards or privileges will be distributed in such manner as will not give rise to any controversy or dissatisfaction. Everyone will accept the arrangement or rearrangement as just or proper or appropriate or fair. We here use a cluster of words simply to signify that the concept is variously used.

In another definition we find the following:

“Justice is the morally justifiable apportionment of rewards or punishments, each person being given what he or she is due.” Here the concept has been used in moral sense. That is justice is a moral idea or concept.

It is also associated with another meaning. Justice means to pay a man his due share. Though the word due is quite significant, it is full of ambiguities. What is due for one, the same may not be so to other. He may think that it is less than due and in this way the word due is bound to create controversy.

Justice implies, not to deprive an individual of his legitimate share of anything which may be wealth income privileges, opportunities etc. When deprivation occurs he may object and say that injustice has been meted out to him. The Greek philosopher Plato meant the term in this sense. He believed that in his ideal state none will feel any sort of deprivation everyone will be paid his due share.

If any type of deprivation happens to occur the state cannot be ideal. Hence we can say that according to Plato one of the important elements of ideal state is justice and the philosopher king must strive to realise justice.

Problems of Justice:

The concept of justice is not only controversial but also number of problems is associated with it. It may justifiably be observed that justice is to some extent the will-o-the wisp. It is something which cannot be achieved very comfortably but at the same time the attempts to achieve it cannot be abandoned.

1. Some people argue that redistribution of income and wealth is a grand way to achieve justice. But what are the criteria which will decide the redistribution of income and wealth? There are many problems which have intrigued this issue.

2. Again the very concept of justice is highly problematic because it is individualistic in nature. What a man calls just another man may call the something unjust and both may have arguments with certain amount of validity.

3. In recent year’s large number of people are obsessed with the concept of social justice Particularly after the Second World War people are thinking seriously about the attainment of social justice because it is the only way of ensuring justice in all the spheres of society. Problem is how it is to be realised? Some people think that the redistribution of income and wealth is the best way to achieve social justice. But we have already noted that this redistribution is not an easy task.

4. A good number of academics have argued that while considering or planning the redistribution of income or wealth, desert, merit and need are to be selected as criteria. But analyses of these criteria are again not above criticism. An evaluation about all these criteria varies from person to person and it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusion.

5. To remove injustice through the redistribution of income and wealth it is necessary that the state should play a dominating as well as positive role. But the interference of state in the arena of attainment of social justice inflames heated controversy. Particularly the protagonists of liberalism are not prepared to give their approval in favour of state interference. They argue that it will definitely encroach upon the freedom of individuals.

6. Some people are habituated to think of justice and equality within the same bracket. In other words, they feel that without equality there cannot exist justice. But the idea of equality is again a complex notion and .its association with justice has complicated both the concepts.

7. It has been asserted by many that through the implementation of a policy to punish the vice and reward the virtue a just society can be established. Here again the problem is who will determine what is vice and what is virtue? There are no universal criteria to determine vice and virtue.

It has been apprehended that tor the realisation of this it is essential that the state should convert itself into a police state. This is not appreciated by many. So what remains is that though justice is a highly desirable concept, it is still the will-o-the wisp.

Finally, we hold the view that not-with standing the fact that justice is a highly appreciated and covetable concept, and attempts are constantly being made to achieve justice, no society whatever may its stage of civilisation and development be, can claim that it has succeeded in establishing justice.

Nature of Justice:

1. It is not an easy task to present a brief exposition of the features of justice and in spite of this problem; we make an humble attempt to point out nature of justice. Since the days of Aristotle it has been held that the most rudimentary feature of justice is equals will be treated equally and un-equals will be unequally treated. Between these two groups there shall exist proportion.

Equals and un-equals should be grouped separately. It has been asserted that the un-equals and equals should not be grouped in the same bracket. If we do so we shall do in justice to both equals and un-equals. Less qualified and less, eligible persons cannot claim same benefits with eligible and qualified persons. If this system prevails in any society justice can never be its feature.

2. Behind the announcement’ of the above principle there exits the idea of rationality. It is generally irrational to give due share to a person who is not eligible. The theory of rationality and theory of justice are closely linked with each other. In practice the rationality and justice cannot be exclusively differentiated.

Though justice, according to Ernest Barker, is a social reality, its link with political science and to some extent philosophy cannot be denied. Politica
l scientists are however mainly concerned with justice because of the reason that realisation of justice is possible through the machinery of state and this happens to be of the subject of political scientists.

3. We have pointed out in this section that differences are to be considered duly and actively while persons are brought under consideration for awarding privileges and opportunities. But the problem is on what counts differences are to be considered? There are differences among men regarding race, sex, religion. But the differences on these counts are not to be thought and they are not relevant for granting civil and political rights.

4. Some theorists have attempted to find out the relation between justice and equality. It has been claimed that for the sake of justice authority must make serious efforts to establish equality and when it will be possible justice comes to be a reality. But Norman Barry argues that the relationship between justice and equality is a hotly disputed matter.

The relationship between justices has been elaborately analysed by many and among them the prominent figure is Rawls. His main thesis of justice is primarily concerned with how equality and inequality can be elements of justice.

5. Though there is a controversy between justice and equality it is undeniable that the relationship exists. Equality and preferential treatment are not consistent. That is if some persons receive better treatment because of superiority in wealth and income or any other ground that violates the basic norm of equality. However, it is also against the basic norm of justice.

6. So far as the distribution of opportunities and at the same time attainment of justice are concerned two criteria desert and need appear. Norman Barry defines desert in this way. “The concept of desert refers to those properties of a man’s actions that are worthy of special treatment”. The actions of a man are not only different from the action of other men they require special treatment. That is actions are to be rewarded. If this is not done injustice will be done to the persons concerned.

Thus desert will be a criterion of special treatment but this cannot violate the principle of equality. We can easily find out a relationship between justice and desert and recognition of desert. Along with desert there is a criterion which is known as need. One can easily distinguish between desert and need.

One is to be awarded for special activities or contributions. In absence of this there arises no question of awarding anybody. On the other hand, need-based governmental actions have no connection with actions. The government adopts the policy of providing old age benefits or giving monetary help to weaker sections of the body politic or any other scheme. All these may be termed as welfare schemes.

7. While the authority is going to award a person for his special activities, it must also be considered that the actions must make some positive contribution to the progress of the society. More actions (whatever may the nature of actions be) do not call for reward or special treatment.

8. Both desert and need as criteria of governmental action must be kept outside the area of politics and emotion. Impartiality must play the dominant role. Otherwise both these criteria will lose their importance.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about the defection politics in India.

Defection politics in India started after Fourth General Elections held in 1967 and thereafter it continued to draw serious attention of the people. Prior to this there were also political defections when persons like Dr. Raghu Vira, Ashok Mehta and T. Prakasham left their parties. But at that time problem was not really serious because such instances were few and far between.

The cases being very few caused only ripples but not storms. It was, however, after 1967 that in many states Congress party did not come to power and thus had no clear cut majority. The opposition parties had ample opportunities to form their governments and thus both the sides started persuading elected legislators to join their side.

Allegations were made that the legislators changed very frequently their allegiance and in Haryana, it is said that a legislator changed his allegiance thrice in a day. Between March and December, 1967 out of total membership of about 3,450 state legislators about 320 changed their loyalties.

Leaving aside the states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Nagaland, the problem of defection was existing almost everywhere, in some states that being very serious.

Between March 1967 and March 1970 in some states the members who left their political parties and joined other parties, the position was as under:

This does not mean that in other states/union territories there was no problem of defection. All that is meant is that there it was comparatively less serious.

The position in respect of other states/union territories was as under:

Whereas party members, defected in large numbers in many states, independents also did not lag-behind. During this period of 3 years as many as 327 independent legislators defected in the state legislatures.

Their position in each state was:

The Parliament was also not free from detections. During this period 148 party and four independent members here also defected.

This politics of defection or what was then began to be called as that of ‘Aya Ram’ and ‘Gaya Ram’ seemed playing such a prominent role that in many states, governments survived and went out of power on the activities and attitudes of these political turn coats.

To quote few examples, these were the governments of Charan Singh and T.N. Singh in U.P.; G.N. Singh in M.P.; Rao Birendra Singh in Haryana, Gurnam Singh, Prakash Singh Badal and Lachman Singh Gill in Panjab; M.P. Sinha, B.P. Mandal, Daroga Rai and Karpoori Thakur in Bihar and E.S.M. Namoodripad in Kerala. This politics of turn coat, created a lot of inconvenience to the bureaucracy and made that in a way very strong and powerful.

There were frequent falls of governments resulting in political instability and delays in decision-making process at political level. In addition to this there was no continuity in policies, because each government which came to power followed its own policies, many a time undoing the work of previous governments.

This state of affairs continued when in 1971 general elections were held in the country and Congress party led by Smt. Indira Gandhi swept the polls not only at the centre but also in many states. There was, thus, comparative stability. Many turn coat politicians began to think in term of joining this Congress.

But in between there was an important happening. In 1969, Congress party got completely split. Many senior Congress men formed one group which began to be called syndicate Congress or Congress(O).

The group did not see eye to eye with the policies and programmes of the Prime Minister and the way in which government was functioning. Those who remained with the Prime Minister began to be called Congress (N). Thus, technically either of the group can be stated to have defected from the party.

In 1971, general elections were held for Parliament and 1972 some of the states went to the polls. As a result of these elections Congress party headed by Smt. Indira Gandhi got a massive mandate and for some time it appeared as if there would be no defections, because the turn coats would not feel attracted to go out of the Congress; only other possibility being that some of the opposition members might join the Congress. But process of defection continued.

In November, 1972 former Orissa Chief Minister Biju Pattnaik revived his Utkal Congress. In February, 1973 he persuaded Industries Minister of Smt. Nandini Satpathy Government to resign, who joined Pattnaik’s newly founded Pragati Party with his supporters.

This reduced Nandini Satpathy’s Government to minority resulting in its downfall. Though Pattnaik claimed that he was in a position to form alternative government, yet Governor recommended dissolution of the House. Thus, defection politics in the state resulted in the down fall of one otherwise stable government.

The same drama was staged in Manipur where 10 MLAs belonging to ruling United Legislature party defected and formed a new group and joined hands with Congress and CPI. They claimed a majority in the House, but in this case also the Governor decided to dissolve the House.

Defection drama was played in Bihar also where 15 Bihar MLAs belonging to non-Congress parties decided to join the Congress.

Manipur was again the scene of defection politics. In that state elections were held in February, 1974 where Manipur People’s Party and Manipur Hills Unions jointly won majority in the Assembly. But just after 4 months the latter party decided to leave the government and joined Progressive Democratic Front and thus the government was reduced to minority and had a fall.

In 1973, Pondicherry also faced the problem of instability created by defectors, left the ruling DMK and joined All India Anna DMK. The Chief Minister tendered his resignation to the Lt. Governor, who on his advice recommended dissolution of the House. President rule was imposed in the state in early January, 1974.

In March, 1975, several MLAs defected from ruling United Democratic Front and joined Nagaland Nationalist Organisation, thus, resulting in the fall of Front government. This provided an opportunity to Nationalist Organisation to form government.

But the new government had remained in power for hardly 10 days when again there were defections, reducing it to a minority. There was so much of instability that Governor L.P. Singh had no other alternative but to recommend the dissolution of the Assembly.

In 1975, internal emergency was declared throughout the country and with that many opposition leaders were put behind the bars. There was reduced political activity throughout the country and no body dared to join any opposition party. The result was that for 19 months during which emergency continued in the country, there was no defection.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Role of the Vice-President of India 2. Qualifications for Vice-Presidentship 3. Procedure for the Election of the Vice-President 4. Term of Office 5. Oath of Office 6. Election Disputes 7. Functions of the Vice-President.

Role of the Vice-President of India:

The Constitution of India provides for the office of the Vice-President of India, who shall also be ex-officio the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, which is Upper House of Indian Parliament. He is to be elected by an electoral college consisting of members of both the Houses of Parliament. The election will be held by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote.

Election procedure of the Vice-President of India is significantly different in some ways than that of the President of India. Firstly, in the election of the President only elected members of the Parliament participate, whereas in that of the Vice-President, both the elected as well as nominated ones both take part.

Then another difference between the two is that whereas in the election of the President, members of state legislature are equal participants and enjoy parity of votes with the members of Parliament in the electoral college, for the election of the Vice-President the members of state legislatures do not participate in spite of the fact that the Rajya Sabha represents the states.

Then whereas for the election of the President each member of Parliament has vote values in hundred, in the case of the election of the Vice-President each member has only one vote. It is the responsibility of the Election Commission of India to conduct election of the Vice-President.

Qualifications for Vice-Presidentship:

Any citizen of India can be a candidate for the office of Vice-President of India provided he is not a member of either House of Parliament or state legislature-and if he is so, as soon as he is elected as Vice-President, he will be deemed to have vacated his seat in that House, on the date on which he enters the office of the Vice- President.

Such a person should also be citizen of India and should have completed 35 years of age. He must also possess such qualifications which entitle him to become a member of the Rajya Sabha.

He should also not hold any office of profit under the Government of India or any state legislature. But for this purpose a person who occupies the office of the President, Governor or holds a Ministerial post either in the centre or in the state, shall not be deemed to be a holder of office of profit. The candidate should not be of unsound mind. He should also not be insolvent.

Procedure for the Election of the Vice-President:

A question, however, arises as to why a different procedure has been adopted for election for the office of the Vice-President as compared with that of the President of India. This was explained by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly.

He said, “The President is the head of the state and his power extends both to the administration by the centre as well at the states. Consequently it is necessary in his election, that not only members of Parliament should play their part, but members of state legislature should have a voice; but when we come the Vice- President his normal functions are to preside over the meetings of Council of States. It is on a rare occasion and that too for a temporary period, that he may be called upon to assume the duties of the President. That being so it does not seem necessary that the members of state legislature should be invited to take part in the election of the Vice-President.”

Term of Office:

The Vice-President of India shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he joins his office but he can resign earlier, if he so likes. He can also be removed earlier, provided the Rajya Sabha by a majority of votes of the members present and voting decides to remove him from his office. Such a resolution should also be agreed by the Lok Sabha.

It is, however, clearly provided that for such a resolution a clear fourteen days notice should be given by the members who intend to move such a resolution. The Vice-President shall continue to remain in his office even after the expiry of his term, unless his successor has joined.

Since the Vice-President can be removed by a resolution of the House, there is no system of impeachment as provided in the case of removal of the President.

In the constitution there is no mention whether Vice-President can immediately be re-elected after the expiry of his term or not. But Dr. Radha Krishnan held this office for two terms. This in practice means that the Vice-President of India can hold office for two terms.

Since then no Vice-President has held office more than full one term. It implies that in India a convention is developing that the Vice-President shall at the most be re-elected for one more term and not beyond that.

In India also there is no convention that the Vice-President will automatically become the President of India, as soon as that high office falls vacant. Thus, office of the Vice-President is not a stepping stone for the office of the President.

Of course, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Dr. Zakir Hussain and R. Venkataraman were Vice- Presidents before they became the Presidents and so was the case with V.V. Giri. But G.S. Pathak and B.D. Jatti, though Vice-Presidents were not stepped into Rashtrapati Bhawan. Similarly Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Giani Zail Singh were not the Vice-Presidents, before they adorned the office of the President.

By an Act of Parliament passed in May, 1990 entitled “Salaries and Allowances of officers of Parliament.” Salary and allowances of Vice- President of India have been equated with those of the Speaker of Lok Sabha.

Oath of Office:

If the office of the Vice-President falls vacant due to any reason, his successor will not remain in office for the unexpired term of the President. If however he is elected for that high office he will remain in office for a full term of 5 years from the date on which he enters upon the office.

On his election as Vice-President, like the President, of India, he will be required to take the following oath:

“I, A. B. do that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter.”

Election Disputes:

Since the Vice-President of India is elected, therefore, there can be every chance of his election being challenged. Article 71 of the constitution provided that all such election disputes will be decided by the Supreme Court of India. Constitution Eleventh Amendment Act provided that his election shall not be challenged on the ground that there is a vacancy in the electoral college.

But a declaration that an election was void shall not invalidate acts done by the Vice-President in the exercise of powers and duties of his office before the decision of the Supreme Court.

The Parliament is fully competent to decide the grounds on which election of the Vice-President can be invalidated by the courts. The Supreme Court can, however, exercise his powers only when the election has actually been held void and not before that.

Thirty-Ninth Amendment Act passed on 10th August, 1975, however, pr
ovided that election disputes shall not be decided by the Supreme Court but shall be enquired into and decided by such authority and body and in such manner as may be provided for by and under the law to be passed by the Parliament Validity of law and decision of the authority or body which took the decision shall not be called in question in any court of law.

Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Act again brought a change and it was provided that the Supreme Court was competent to listen to all disputes arising out of the election of the President and Vice-President of India and its decision shall be final.

The election of the Vice-President of India has twice been challenged. In September 1969, H.V. Kamath a Member of Parliament, challenged the election of Vice-President, G.S. Pathak on the plea that nomination papers of Dr. Shakheja, which were received by the Returning Officer by post, were wrongly rejected.

Justice S.M. Sikri, then held the election of the Vice- President as valid saying that all such nomination papers should be presented in person either by the proposer or seconder, because otherwise many anomalies were likely to arise.

In December 1969, election of Vice-President, V.V. Giri was challenged by a group of Members of Parliament on the plea that nomination papers of some of the candidates were wrongly rejected whereas those of V.V. Giri were wrongly accepted. It was also alleged that bribery and corrupt means, including undue influence was exerted during the election by the candidate and also by his workers.

Other issues which came up were whether Section 21 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Act was in any way ultra- vires of the constitution and whether Rule 4 and Rule 6 (3) (e) of the Rules infringed the constitution.

In other words, whether by these rules the government had or had not exceeded its rule making power. The arguments went on for about 9 months, but ultimately the court upheld the election of the Vice-President and petition made on this behalf was rejected.

Functions of the Vice-President:

The Vice-President of India is ex-officio chairman of the Rajya Sabha and in that capacity he performs all such functions which a Presiding Officer of the House is required to perform. He is to see that there is perfect decorum in the House and all business in the House is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. As Presiding Officer of the House he has no right to vote.

The members in the House can speak only with his permission and he is to see that no member of the House unnecessarily holds the House to ransom. All Bills Resolutions etc., in the House can be moved only with his approval. He allocates time for debate and like the Speaker of the Lok Sabha he protects rights and privileges of members of his House. He is spokesman of his House and represent his House on every occasion.

As soon as office of the President of India falls vacant due to any reason, Vice-President steps in and performs such duties and undertakes such responsibilities as are of the President of India. Under the constitution it is provided that such a vacancy should be filled in within a period of 6 months.

If the Vice-President is elected as the President of India, then he shall hold office for a full term of 5 years and not for the unexpired period of the term of the President, whose vacancy has fallen vacant. In the warrant of Precedence he enjoys rank next only to President.

Since no money bill can originate in the Rajya Sabha, therefore, it is not his problem to decide whether a particular bill is money bill or not. In this connection it may be mentioned that the constitution has no-where laid criteria to decide or find out whether the President is unable to discharge his duties or not and accordingly President himself is to decide about his inability.

There have been several occasions when Vice-Presidents have performed the duties of the President. Dr. Radhakrishnan performed the duties of President in the absence of its incumbent Dr. Rajendra Prasad.

Similarly Shri. B.D. Jatti performed the same duties when President Sanjiva Readdy went to the U.S.A. for medical treatment. Mr. Justice Hidayatullah who was Vice-President of India when Giani Zail Singh went to the U.S.A. for his medical treatment, performed the functions of President.

Vice-President V.V. Giri stepped into the office of President when Dr. Zakir Hussain died in office. Similarly B.D. Jatti acted as President when President Fakhuruddin Ah Ahmed died while still in office. It is worth noting here that when Vice President discharges duties and responsibilities of the President he ceases to be the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and does not perform duties connected with that office.

Upload and Share Your Article:

This article provides a Notes on Gandhi–Irwin Pact and Aftermath!

With the efforts of Dr. Jayakar and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Gandhi Irwin Pact was signed in 1931 by which all political prisoners were released and Congress agreed to withdraw civil disobedience movement, this paved way for the Congress to participate in Second Round-Table Conference, which was convened next year to find a solution to India’s political problem.

In the conference communal and vested interests were given upper most prominence. In the words of Jawahar Lal Nehru, at the conference Gandhiji was the only representative who thought in terms of nation as a whole.

This conference too failed, with the result that civil disobedience movement was again started. To deal with the situation government issued several ordinances to get extraordinary powers and the press was gagged. There were repressions and so on.

Since no solution to the political problem in India was insight, therefore, Lord MacDonald gave his Communal Award on August 16, 1932 with which separate electorates for special interests and minorities and the Muslims were retained. Depressed classes were also given recognition as minorities.

Weightage was given to the Muslims in Muslim majority provinces. Three per cent seats were reserved for women and separate electorate was provided for Indian Christians and Anglo-Indians. Seats were also reserved for labour, commerce, landlords and planters.

This Award was protested all over the country because it was unfair to the Hindus and gave over representation to Christians and Europeans. It was also detrimental to national unity and aimed at perpetuation of dissensions among the Hindus.

In order to undo the mischief of MacDonald Award Gandhiji decided to go on fast unto death. His health badly deteriorated and in a bid to save Gandhiji’s life Poona Pact was signed on September 20, 1932, with which much of the harm done on account of the Award was undone.

In order to solve India’s political problem a Third Round. Table Conference was convened on November 17, 1932, but again nothing concrete came out of it and the British government issued a White Paper in March, 1933. It was on the basis of this White Paper that a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in 1935, which subsequently came to be known as the Government of India Act, 1935.

It will thus be seen that sufficient inputs were given to the Act from all sources. Indian National Congress, All India Muslim League, Indian Princes, Chambers of Commerce and Industries, Indian Christians, religious minorities and vested interests all gave sufficient inputs and feedbacks for the new system that was likely to replace the old one.

No less feedback was provided by the British Parliament, British and world public opinion so that new system could be as progressive as possibly it could be. But the system had its own limitations, namely, there was no desire to weaken the hold of autocracy or to make the system democratic and responsive to public opinion.

Upload and Share Your Article: