Category: Political Science Notes

This article throws light upon the two main types of organisation. The types are: 1. Independent System 2. Integrated System.

Type # 1. Independent System:

One of the two types of organisation is called Independent or Uncorrelated system. Under this system each service is treated as an independent unit having no direct relations to other services. The line of authority here runs from the operating service direct to the chief executive or the legislature which created it and is directing and controlling it.

In this system each service is treated as an independent unit having little or no direct relation with other services. The American system of administration is characterized as Independent, disintegrated or uncorrelated.

In that country, there are at least five different kinds of independent establishments, namely:

(i) The regulatory commissions,

(ii) The government corporations,

(iii) Professional service agencies,

(iv) Elected officials such as State Treasurer and the Attorney General, and

(v) The auditors.

There are also many other agencies such as Tennessee Valley Authority. Then there are numer­ous boards and commissions. All these establishments are not linked with one another. They do not come completely under the control of the chief executive. They are called the “headless fourth branch of government”.

Type # 2. Integrated System:

Under the second system called Integrated or Departmental system an attempt, “is made to group all services whose operations fall in the same general field and which should conse­quently maintain intimate working relations with each other, into departments presided over by officers having a general oversight of them all and entrusted with the duty of seeing that they work harmoniously towards the attainment of the common end.”

In this system the various services maintain their distinctive character and perform work in their respective fields.

The essential point is that by grouping them they are brought into close relationship with one an­other. They in fact become several parts of the same machine. The line of authority runs from the several services to the departments of which they are the units, and from these to the chief executive or to the legislature whose jurisdiction extends over all the departments.

The inte­grated system, therefore, involves the abolition of the independent status of agencies like the independent regulatory commissions or administrative bodies or officials directly elected by the people and responsible to the people.

An illustration may be given to clarify the point:

The C.I.D. has the duty to investigate secretly the crimes committed and find out the criminals to prosecute whom is the duty of prosecuting service.

The armed police is appointed to prevent violation of peace and disturbance of order. On an examination of the work of all these services it appears that they have a common goal, i.e., the maintenance of peace, law and order. There­fore it is but desirable that all these services should be grouped together into the Police Depart­ment.

The Indian system of organisation is largely integrated. All the agencies performing com­mon functions are grouped into various departments, e.g., Defence, Railways, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, Law and Justice, Human Resource Development etc., and all these Departments are placed under the authority of the cabinet ministers who are responsible to the legislature.

It may, however, be remarked that there is no country in the world which has got a completely integrated administrative system. In India there are government corporations, public service commissions, and Comptroller and Auditor General who are independent of the cabinet control.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Here is an essay on the ‘Commissions in India’ for class 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on the ‘Commissions in India’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay # 1. Constitutional Commissions:

Our Constitution makes a mention of some of the com­missions and they have got to be appointed. Such commissions are the Finance Commission, the Union Public Service Commission, the Election Commission, the Backward Classes Com­mission, and the Official Language Commission. Because of the constitutional sanctity attached to these commissions, they enjoy the greatest amount of autonomy.

They are appointed by the President of India and do not come under the control of any other executive authority. The members of these commissions are appointed by the President but they cannot be removed from office except by a special procedure. Their salaries are a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India and they are not alterable to their disadvantage during the term of their office.

a. The Finance Commission:

Article 280 of the Indian Constitution provides for the constitution of the Finance Commission at an interval of five years or earlier if the President of India considers necessary. The Commission shall consist of a Chairman and four other members to be appointed by the President.

Article 281 makes it imperative for the President to “cause every recommendation made by the Finance Commission under the provisions of this Constitu­tion together with an explanatory memorandum as to the action taken thereon to be laid before each House of Parliament.”          

The functions of the Commission are:

(i) The distribution between the Union and the States of the net proceeds of taxes which are to be, or may be, divided between them and the allocation between the States of the respec­tive shares of such proceeds;

(ii) The principles which should govern the grants-in-aid of the revenues of the states out of the Consolidated Fund of India;

(iii) Any other matter referred to the President in the interests of sound finance.

The Finance Commissions have been playing prominent role in stabilizing economy of the states. For instance the ninth Finance Commission made recommendations relating to the devo­lution of taxes and duties to the states grants-in-aid under article 275 of the Constitution financing of relief expenditure and debt relief to the states covering the 5 year period which originally had to commence on April 1, 1990.

It also recommended that out of net distributable proceeds, a sum equal to 1.437 per cent should be deemed to represent the share of the Union Territories in Income Tax and 85 per cent of the divisible pool of income tax should be assigned to the states. Another important recommendation of the Commission pertained to earmarking of 45 per cent of the net proceeds of shareable Union excise duties to the states.

Further it suggested that the existing arrangements for financing relief-expenditure should be replaced by a new one under which the states should have greater autonomy and accountability.

It also proposed that the Government of India shall contribute to the calamity relief fund to the extent of 75 per cent in the form of non plan grant. These recommendations along with explanatory memorandum were placed by the then Finance Minister before Lok Sabha on March 12, 1990. Evidently, its role is pivotal.

b. Public Service Commissions:

Articles 315—323 of the Indian Constitution provide for a Public Service Commission for the Union and a Public Service Commission for each State. The members of the Union Public Service Commission are appointed by the President of India and that of the Public Service Commission’s of various States by the Governors.

c. The Election Commission:

Article 324 of the Indian Constitution provides for the constitution of an Election Commission with a Chief Election Commissioner as its Chairman.

The functions of the Commission are “superintendence, direction and control of the prepara­tion of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legisla­ture of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President, including the appointment of election tribunals for the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with elections to Parliament and to the Legislatures of States.”

d. The Backward Classes Commission:

Article 340 of the Constitution provides that the President may appoint a Backward Class Commission to “investigate the conditions of so­cially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove such difficulties and to improve their condition and as to the grants that should be made for the purpose by the Union or any State and the conditions subject to which such grants should be made.” the report of the Commission is laid before each House of the Parliament.

e. The Official Language Commission:

Article 344 of the Indian Constitution provides for the appointment of an Official Language Commission, at the expiration of five years from the commencement of the Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of ten years from such commencement.

The Commission recommends the President as to:

(i) The progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of the Union;

(ii) Restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the official purposes of the Union;

(iii) The language to be used for all or any of the purposes in the Supreme and High Courts, etc.;

(iv) The form of numerals to be used for any one or more specified purposes of the Union;

(v) Any other matter referred to the Commission by the President as regards the official language of the Union and the language for communication between the Union and a State or between one State and another and their use.

The Commission consists of a Chairman and such other members representing the differ­ent languages as the President may appoint.

From a brief study of the functions of the Commission given above, it is clear that, unlike the independent regulatory commissions of the U.S.A., they do not exclude the President of India to the degree to which the President of America is excluded.

They submit their reports to the Parliament through the President of India and this helps us to have an integrated administra­tive set-up. Besides the members cannot be removed from office except by a special procedure thus ensuring independence of the members.

A Telecom Regulatory Authority has been recently set up to regulate the telecom services to be provided by the private sector. The Vajpayee government introduced a Bill in the Winter Session (1998) of the Parliament to set up an Insurance Regulatory Authority consequent to the entry of foreigner in the field of insurance business.

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Act was passed in late 1999 and the IRDA was established with effect from 19th April 2000. The Authority was empowered to make a code of conduct applicable to all surveyors and assessors.

Essay # 2. Statutory Commissions:

The second category of commissions and boards is that which are set up by the Acts of the Parliament. Examples of such bodies are the University Grants Commission, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Railway Board, the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Flood Control Board and various Public Corporations.

The statutory boards or commissions function under the general administrative control of one or the other Ministries of the Government of India but
enjoy autonomy in their own administrative work, the depart­mental procedures are not applied by them in conduct of their work except when they voluntar­ily opt for them. Such boards and commissions exist in the state governments also.

Essay # 3. Commissions Set Up by Executive Orders:

There are boards and commis­sions which are set up by an order of the Executive. Examples of such bodies are, the Handi­crafts Board, the Handloom Board, the Central Social Welfare Board, the Central Water and Power Commission, etc.

Such boards and commissions enjoy much less autonomy than the boards and commissions at (a) and (b) above. They are generally attached to the Minister who has the power to regulate their conduct of business and even abolish them altogether.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Read this article in Hindi to learn about the various problems regarding good governance in India along with its reformative measures.

भारत में सदशासन से सम्बन्धित समस्याएँ (Problems Regarding Good Governance in India):

भारत में यद्यपि प्राचीन काल में सद्‌शासन का अस्तित्व रहा है किन्तु वर्तमान में सद्‌शासन एवं उत्तरदायी शासन का विचार सैद्धान्तिक आधार पर तो स्वीकार किया जाता है किन्तु व्यवहार में इसके मार्ग में बहुत सी बाधायें हैं जिनका संक्षिप्त विवरण निम्नवत् है:

(i) राजनीतिक अस्थायित्व:

भारतीय राजनीति में सन् 1984 के बाद से निरन्तर राजनीतिक अस्थायित्व का दोर देखने को मिला है । अल्पकालीन सरकारों की कल्याणकारी कार्यों में कम स्वार्थ पूर्ण लक्ष्यों की पूर्ति एवं सत्ता लोलुपता में लिप्तता अधिक बनी रही । इन परिस्थतियों में सद्‌शासन की बात काल्पनिक प्रतीत होती है ।

(ii) राजनीतिक दलों में वृद्धि:

भारत में राष्ट्रीय दलों की संख्या सात है । इसके अतिरिक्त राज्यस्तरीय राजनीतिक दल तैंतीस हैं तथा 612 रजिस्टर्ड किन्तु अमान्यता प्राप्त दल हैं । अनेक दलों के अपने कोई सिद्धान्त नहीं हैं । राजनीतिक दलो के अन्तर्गत निष्ठा परिवर्तन भी आम बात है ।

(iii) राजनीति का अपराधीकरण:

भारतीय राजनीति में चुनाव जीतने के लिए अपराधी तत्वों का उम्मीदवार के रूप में खड़े होना अथवा अपराधी तत्वों द्वारा दबाव बनाना एक आम बात हो गई है । सन् 1970 के बाद से ये अपराधी तत्व खुले रूप में राजनीति में प्रवेश लेने लगे हैं ।

राजनीतिज्ञों एवं अपराधिक तत्वों के आपसी सम्बन्धों ने आज एक विकराल रूप धारण कर लिया है । विधायिका में सशस्त्र रूप से अपराधी तत्वों का प्रवेश भी साधारण बात हो गई है जो कि निस्संदेह भारतीय लोकतन्त्र की छवि पर एक कलंक के समान है ।

उपर्युक्त समस्याओं के अतिरिक्त राजनीतिक मूल्यों में गिरावट तथा राजनीतिक-आर्थिक क्षेत्रों की साँठ गाँठ ने भी सुशासन की स्थापना की आशा को धूमिल कर दिया है ।

सुधारात्मक प्रयास (Reformative Measures):

भारत में सुशासन अथवा उत्तरदायी शासन की स्थापना को साकार रूप प्रदान करने के लिए निम्नलिखित सुधारात्मक कदम उठाये जाने चाहिए:

(1) देश में संवैधानिक व प्रशासनिक सुधार को प्राथमिकता दी जानी चाहिए ।

(2) प्रमुख लक्ष्य जनता की सेवा एवं जनता की भलाई होना चाहिए ।

(3) राजनीतिक दल लोकतान्त्रिक भावना पर आधारित होने चाहिए ।

(4) विधायकों एवं मन्त्रियों के नैतिक स्तर में सुधार लाना चाहिए ।

(5) योग्य, सक्षम, जनकल्याण की भावना से प्रेरित एवं चरित्रवान नेताओं का ही चयन किया जाना चाहिए ।

(6) राजनीतिक दलों के व्यय को नियन्त्रित किया जाये ।

(7) राजनीतिज्ञों व अपराधिक तत्वों की सांठगांठ पर नियन्त्रण स्थापित हो ।

(8) जन सहभागिता को प्रोत्साहित करना ।

(9) सद्‌शासन के सिद्धान्तों का प्रचार करना ।

निस्संदेह इन उपचारों को कार्यान्वित करना एक जटिल कार्य है किन्तु असम्भव नहीं है ।

Upload and Share Your Article:

Since the state is organized and the government is established for the welfare of the citizen, it becomes essential that we should know the meaning of the term “citizen”. The term ‘citizen’ can be understood in a narrow or in a broad sense. In a narrow sense, it means the resident of a city or one who enjoys the privilege of living m a city. While in a broad sense citizen means a person who resides within the territorial limits of the state.

Speaking in terms of Political Science, citizen means a person who is the member of the state and who enjoys social and political rights. In our country an adult of twenty-one years of age enjoys, regardless of the distinction of caste, colour and creed, education, property and residence, etc.

As a matter of fact, the concept of citizenship goes back to the ancient city- states where the population was divided into two classes —the citizens and the slaves. The citizens enjoyed both civil and political rights. They directly or indirectly participate in all the functions of the civil and political life of the state.

Whereas the slaves enjoyed none of such rights and suffered from all kinds o political and economic disabilities. In this way in ancient Greece the term ‘citizen’ was used in its narrow sense. Only those who enjoyed the civil and political rights and who participated in the functions of the civil and political life of people were regarded as citizens.

Since every individual of the total population privileged to enjoy these rights, the number of the slaves was far in excess of citizens. The number of the citizens comprised 20,000 of the total population and the rest were regarded as slaves who did not enjoy any such rights.

In short, we can say that in ancient Greek states this right to citizenship was enjoyed by only a selected few persons. Much similar process was followed in ancient Rome. People belonging to only rich class, known as Patricians, were privileged to enjoy the civil and political rights.

Only the Patricians participated in the functions of the civil and political life of the state. The rest of the population was not privileged to enjoy any of such rights. Much similar process was adopted in the medieval age. But in modern times, the dawn of democracy has turned the tables in most of the states. In such states every adult enjoys the right to vote. This process is being adopted in India. Canada, Sri Lanka, Japan, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Lanka, Australia, United States of America, etc. Even in the communist countries almost all the adults are enjoying the right to vote.

The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc., are some of the states where the policy of adult suffrage has been adopted. In Switzerland, women are not privileged to enjoy the right to vote. In Pakistan and in many backward Afro-Asian countries citizens are not privileged to enjoy a number of civil and political rights. It is hoped that in due course of time people will enjoy all the rights in these countries also. The U.N. is trying its best in this respect.

Definition of the citizen:

According to Aristotle, citizen is he “who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state”. Vattal has defined citizens as, “the members of a civil society bound to this society by certain duties, subject to its authority and equal participants in its advantages”. “Citizenship”, according to Laski, “is the contribution of one’s instructed judgment to the public good”.

On the basis of definitions given above, we arrive at the conclusion that in order to become a citizen one must have the following:

(1) The membership of the state.

(2) The Social and Political rights.

(3) Sentiment of devotion to the state.

Distinction between an alien and a citizen:

There is a marked distinction between an alien and a citizen. A citizen enjoys civil and political rights in his own country. Whereas an alien is not privileged to enjoy the political rights of the country but sometimes he is privileged to enjoy a few of the social rights. It depends entirely on the government of the country, in which he lives, to permit him to enjoy the social rights or not.

Aliens are of three types:

(1) Resident aliens;

(2) Temporary aliens;

(3) Ambassadors.

The people who have left their native land and have settled in the foreign countries are known as resident aliens. For example, a number of Indians have permanently settled in Sri Lanka, Burma, Canada, South Africa, Australia, U.S.A., England, etc.

They are no more the citizens of India. But it depends on the government of the respective states to grant these residents the citizenship of their country or not. Temporary aliens are those people who visit foreign countries in order to serve their purposes and when their purposes are served, they go back to their native land.

For example every year a number of students go to foreign countries in order to receive higher education. Traders visit foreign countries for the purpose of trade. When their purposes are served, they come back to their home.

Ambassadors are those aliens who settle in foreign countries as the representatives of their governments. For example, the representatives of foreign countries live in India and the representatives of Indian government live in foreign countries.

Foreign friends and enemies:

Every country has some friends and some enemies. Friendly countries are called foreign friends and enemy countries, foreign enemies. For example, during the Second World War, France, U.S.S.R., America, Canada, Australia, etc., were foreign friends to England; and Germany, Japan and Italy were foreign enemies to England.

We do not have good relations with South Africa and China and they can be called foreign enemies of India. On the contrary, we have good relations with U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Egypt and so they can be called our foreign friends.

Previously, we did not have good relations with Pakistan and the result was Indo-Pak conflicts in 1965. But Tashkent Summit held in January, 1966 resulted in an agreement between Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri, the then Prime Minister of India, and President Ayub Khan of Pakistan.

The agreement could remain effective only for a bit longer. The relations between the two countries were once again strained and the result was the second Indo-Pakistan conflict in December, 1971. But historic Simla Summit held in July, 1972 resulted in an agreement between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Bhutto. In spite of that Pakistan continued hostile attitude towards India.

How can the citizenship be acquired?

Citizens are of two types: natural born and naturalised. Natural born citizens are those who are the citizens of a state by virtue of their birth or blood relations. Naturalised citizens are those foreigners who are granted the citizenship of the country on the fulfillment of some conditions laid down by the respective country.

A person who desires to be the citizen of a foreign country has to give up the citizenship of his native country. No persons can be the citizen of more than one country at the same time. Any person can acquire the citizenship of a foreign country after having fulfilled the condition laid down by that country for this purpose.

How the Citizenship is lost?

A person loses his citizenship in the following manner:

(1) If a person willingly gives up the citizenship of his country and becomes a foreign citizen;

(2) A woman loses her citizenship if she marries a foreigner;

(3) A person loses his citizenship if he remains absent from his country for a longer period of time. But if he gets his citizenship renewed every year through the embassy of his country, he does not lose his citizenship
;

(4) A person can be deprived of his citizenship if he proves a traitor to the country or if he runs away from the army;

(5) A person loses his citizenship if he joins a foreign service or receives a foreign honour without the permission of his own government.

Qualities of a good citizen and hindrances in the way of good citizenship:

The following are the qualities of a good citizen:

(1) Social sentiment;

(2) Good health and sound physique;

(3) Sentiment of world citizenship;

(4) Moderate thinking and self-control;

(5) Unselfishness and helpful attitude to others;

(6) Patriotism and the elimination of untouchability:

(7) The proper use of adult suffrage.

The following are the hindrances in the way of good citizenship:

(1) Selfishness;

(2) Favouritism and Nepotism;

(3) Indifferences;

(4) Feeling of groupism;

(5) Idleness;

(6) Illiteracy;

(7) Poverty,

(8) Capitalism;

(9) Feeling of Untouchability;

(10) Provincialism, Communalism and aggressive nationalism.

A good citizenship can be established only after eliminating the hindrances mentioned above. So every state is adopting measures to eliminate these evils. Ideals citizenship can lead to the progress of the country and to the security of world-peace.

Upload and Share Your Article:

(a) Meaning of Pluralism:

Pluralism is a powerful protest against the monistic theory of sovereignty which endows the state with supreme and unlimited power. Harold Laski, J.N. Figgis, Ernest Barker, G. D.H. Cole, A. D. Lindsay, Duguit, MacIver and others are the exponents of Pluralism. According to Pluralists, sovereignty resides not with the state but it resides with many other institutions. There exist many social, political, cultural and economic institutions in society and many of these institutions are prior to the State. For example, Family and Church are prior to the State.

According to Pluralists, the State is not only the supreme institution. On the contrary, like other institutions the State is also one of the institutions of society. There the State does not reserve the authority to exercise sovereignty according to his will. Sovereignty is not his private property.

The Pluralistic state is, therefore, “simply a state in which there exists no single source of authority”. According to Pluralists, sovereignty is not indivisible and exclusive”. One the contrary it is a multiplicity in its essence and manifestation, it is divisible in two parts and should be divided”.

A.D. Lindsay has very aptly remarked in this connection. “If we look at the facts it is clear enough that the theory of sovereign state has broken down”. Professor Laski is of the opinion that “it is impossible to make the legal theory of sovereignty valid for political philosophy”.

He believed that “it would be lasting benefit to political science if the whole concept of sovereign was surrendered”. Krabbe is of the opinion that the “notion of sovereignty must be expunged from political theory”.

While Barker says, “We see the State less as an association of individuals in a common life; we see it more as an association of individuals, already united in various groups for a further and more embracing common purpose”. These associations have an inner life which is at least as autonomous as that of the state.

Thus, the pluralists ardently advocate the autonomy and freedom of profession, political, religious, economic, social and educational associations. Gettell has beautifully summed up the idea of pluralism in these words, “The pluralists deny that the state is a unique organisation, they hold that other associations are equally important and natural, they argue that such associations for their purpose are as sovereign as the state is for its purpose. They emphasise the inability of the state to enforce its will in practice against the opposition of certain groups within it. They deny that possession of force by the state gives it any superior right. They insist on the equal rights of all groups that command the allegiance of their members and that perform valuable functions in society. Hence, sovereignty is possessed by many associations. It is not indivisible unit; the state is not supreme or unlimited”.

(b) Development of the Pluralistic Theory:

The pluralistic theory originated in the writings of Otto V. Gierke. “The germ of Pluralism is to be found”, says Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “in the work of the German Jurist, Von Gierke (1844-1921) whose monumental work on the legal theory of corporation, part of which was translated, with a sympathetic introduction, by the English Jurist, F.W. Maitland, in his “Political Theories of Middle Ages” (1900), gave an impetus to the idea of corporations as legal entities, with a life of their own independent of government”

No doubt it is true that the theory of pluralism originated in the last quarters of the nineteenth century and developed in the beginning of the twentieth century, yet its background can be traced in the Medieval Age.

In Medieval Age, the organisation of the State in Europe was loose and the church, vocational associations and Guilds played their significant role in society. In sixteenth and seventeenth century, national sentiment gathered force in Europe and as a consequence national states emerged.

These national states became powerful and all the powers, in these states, were centered with the ruler. In due course of time, these national states faced revolt and public- movements and the result was the dawn of democracy.

In Democracy, the authority of the ruler was confined, the cabinet became more powerful but the state remained sovereign and supreme. With the advent of the Welfare State there came a rapid increase in the functions of the State and there remained no sphere of life with which the State did not interfere, the sovereign and the supreme state also faced revolt and reaction. This reaction against the sovereign and supreme state resulted into the dawn of pluralism.

(c) Factors responsible for the development of Pluralism:

(1) The individuals laid emphasis on the reduction of the powers of the State. The Pluralists also followed suit. But the main point of difference between the individualists and pluralists is that the individualists laid emphasis on the rights and freedom of the individual whereas the pluralists laid emphasis on the rights and freedom of the associations of the individuals and guilds.

(2) Both the individualists and pluralists laid emphasis on the need of co­operation between the state and other associations for promoting the common welfare.

(3) In the modern age, all the states of the world are inter-dependent on one another in one way or the other and, therefore, the need of confining the sovereignty of the state is felt these days.

(4) Famous German Jurist Otto Von Gierke (1844-1921), F.W. Maitland, famous English Jurist, J.N. Figgis and others have argued that the Churches and Guilds possessed internal freedom and were party to sovereignty in the Medieval Age. They argue that if the Churches and Guilds possessed freedom in the Medieval Age, associations must possess freedom and autonomy these days also.

(5) Anarchism and Guild Socialism laid a great stress on the confinement of the sovereignty of the state and this gave impetus to Pluralism.

Main Supporters of Pluralism:

Otto Von Gierke, F.W. Maitland, Figgis, G.D.H. Cole, A.D. Lindsay, Ernest Barker, Krabbe, Duguit, Laski, Cober, Zimmern, Durkheim are some of the supporters of Pluralism. Gierke wrote, “The state should accept the common point of view that permanent associations have rights and duties as groups whether or not the state has accepted them as corporations”.

According to Laski, “State is only one among the various forms of associations and as compared with them, has no superior claims to the individual allegiance”. He further says, “These associations are not less sovereign than the state itself. Because society is federal, the authority must also be federal”.

Krabbe believes that the “notion of sovereignty must expunged from political theory”. Figgis has also admitted the importance of associations. He says, “Human society is not a heap of individuals related only through the State but an ascending hierarchy of groups.

The traditional theory of sovereignty is venerable superstition”. MacIver has also pointed out in his famous book, “The Modern State” that “State is one association among many associations within the community”. The Pluralistic ideology has been very well summed up by Cober, “The state is confronted not merely by unassociated individual but also by other associations evolving independently, eliciting individual loyalties, better adopted than the state-because of their select membership, their special forms of organisation and action for serving various social needs.

(d) Criticism of Pluralism:

The theory of the pluralistic state has been criticised by a number of political thinkers on the following grounds:

(1) The State is needed to control various types of institutions existing in society. It is the sovereign state that brings about unity and regulates all th
e associations existing in society. Gierke, Barker, Miss M.P. Follet and Figgis and many other supporters of Pluralism have to realise the need of the State for this purpose.

(2) If sovereignty is divided among various associations existing in society, this division will lead to the destruction of sovereignty. As a result anarchy will prevail in society and there will be chaos.

(3) Many of the pluralists believe that law is superior to the state and the State is controlled by law. But this hypothesis is wrong because laws are framed by the state.

(4) It is a mere illusion and not a reality that other associations are equal in status to the State.

(5) Laski, the ardent advocate of Pluralism, has also gone to the extent of criticising Pluralism by saying that it has not closely studied the different sections of society.

(6) If sovereignty is divided among various associations existing in society, these associations will be so powerful that it would be difficult, if not possible, for the State to have a control over these associations. This will lead to the rise of numerous problems in the State.

(7) If these associations are transferred limited sovereignty, society will deteriorate and mutual disputes will arise. Professor Gilchrist believes like this.

(8) State is needed for protecting people from the excess of associations.

(e) Importance or Value of Pluralism:

Miss M.P. Follot in her famous book, “The New State” has summed up highlights of Pluralism in the following manner:

(1) The Pluralists “prick the bubble of present state’s right to supremacy. They see that the State which has been slowly forming since the middle Ages with its pretences and unfulfilled claims has not won either our regard or respect”.

(2) They recognise the value of the group and they see that the variety of our group life today has significance which must be immediately reckoned within political life”.

(3) “They plead for revivification of local life”.

(4) “The Pluralists see that the interest of the State is not always identical with the interests of its parts”.

(5) “Pluralism is the beginning of the disappearance of the crowd”.

(6) “Pluralism contains the prophecy of the future because it has, with keenest in sight, seized upon the problem of identity of association, of federalism”.

Gettell describes the contribution of the Pluralists in these words: “The” emphasis on the fact that states, In spite of legal omnipotence, should be subject to moral restraints is a desirable reaction against the idealization of the state and the doctrine that state is an end in itself, free from all moral restraint. The Pluralists also make a timely protest against the rigid and dogmatic legalism of the Austinian theory of sovereignty”.

Gettell further remarks, “The Pluralists emphasise the necessity of studying the actual facts of political life in a rapidly changing social system. In this connection, they point out the growing changing social system. In this connection, they point out the growing importance of non-political groups, the danger of over-interference by the State with the proper functions of such groups and the desirability of giving to such group’s greater legal recognition in the political system”.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Gandhi overlooked many existing complex conditions. He at times allows the use of “violence,” but does not recommend the need of its preparation and training for its proper and effective use. The Government of India in 1948 as usual, kept military Forces in alerted condition. Otherwise how Gandhi could have permitted the use of “violence” (use of armed personnel) to repel the aggression. Violence or Army also like non-violence requires discipline, preparation, and training. Few would agree that all “violence” (power) is used out of cowardice.

He always declared that non-violence always wins or never fails. But it is a widely known fact that both types of non-violence, i.e., non-violence of the brave as well as non-violence of policy or expediency failed to deliver the goods, i.e., ‘Swaraj within one year’ (1920) and ‘Complete Independence’ (1930).

Even after the use of these two types of non-violence, the society was left unprotected. Evidence is nowhere available that a few non-violent persons are ever able to turn out the aggressors after the latter forcibly entered and settled down in a country. Non-violent measures undertaken later often fail to stop their misdeeds, and, expel them from the land.

Similarly anti-social elements finding non-violence as ineffective or powerless often perpetrate much more violence to society than a limited use of force by some trained armed persons which would do some hurting and killing, but defend the larger segments of society in a disciplined and legally permissible manner. What would happen if there were no civilised or liberal government available to permit the use and spread of violence?

Would a society or community like to leave their fate in the hands of a leader for whom the realisation of independence is not an end, as was in case of Gandhi, but a means for the realisation of God? Can a leader like Gandhi be allowed to treat defence and protection of the whole nation as means to realise his own personal end: the moksha (salvation). To achieve independence of India was not the central theme and ultimate goal of his techniques.

The use of non-violence perhaps is simple when there is only one opposing party confronting a Gandhian movement as was during the days of freedom movement. That too must be alien or foreigner, a small minority, not residing in the country. Difficulties would arise in case it was to be conducted against one’s own countrymen. There can be equal number or a substantial majority of adversaries standing against the satyagrahis.

In such a situation, it is not easy to determine the ‘truthfulness’ of the issue or outcome of the conflict even if a large number of satyagrahis make sacrifice of lives on both sides. Similarly, there can be more than three or four parties to the conflict. One or two of them may not be believing in practicing non-violence. In such a situation, the fate of ‘non-violence’ would hang in balance. A country, divided badly into differing big religious, cultural or ethnic communities, when resorts to satyagraha movement may fall prey to separatism, partition or civil war.

It cannot be denied that even with his largely or partially known truth and non-violence and its practice in many areas, Gandhi could awaken and move the masses in millions. It could be possible only when repression and violence did not crush the movement. It also needed a leader having religion-oriented personality and people’s religious faith in what the leader said about the power of non-violence.

There should be some other factors contributing to the success of the movement, like the limits of a liberal government along with crises of great economic depression and the events of World War II occurring at the time of freedom movement. There may be hundreds of Gandhian diehards committed to save and enhance the status of their leader and his non-violence.

In case the religious values are not common or not very effectively ingrained in the minds of the people, non-violent movement might either not happen or cause dissension or separatism, as it did in case of other communities particularly Muslims and Sikhs.

Treating the Gandhian non-violence of creed as a total reality or the only source of power is to do immense harm to the cause of knowledge. It weakens the fabric of the state and society. It has resulted in the neglect of factors and forces making the state viable. It also demoralises the armed forces, which make up the spine of the state. Such attitude slackens the defense preparedness of governments.

The security persons, the police and the armed forces are recruited to use force and arms for the protection of society. It is almost a suicidal teaching that permits the aggressors enter the country, later to be persuaded to get out of it by use of satyagraha. There is every likelihood that once a country is at war with its enemy; the latter likes to take over and settle soon after its gives up weapons and turns non-violent.

Democracy, operating on the principles of fundamental rights of the individual, periodic free elections, free press, independent judiciary, political parties, egalitarian society, welfare state and responsible government, has hardly any place for the dictates of ‘inner voice’ and anarchic devices like fasting, non-co-operation or civil disobedience.

A person, group, community or a party, claiming to have attained any height of spirituality, cannot be permitted to be the only repository of truth. A votary of absolute non-violence, in public life, often appears to regard himself greater than God. God has not been able to operate the world on total non-violence, but can a leader dare claim to do so and create a totally non-violent society?

Promise and provision of non-violence in pure form for the society as a whole is misleading as well as suicidal. Even a great man like Gandhi could not adopt it successfully and always found himself in an ‘experimental’ stage. Neither the non-cooperation nor civil disobedience movements succeeded to the extent of his satisfaction, nor his venture of Hindu-Muslim unity could witness its complete realisation.

Ordaining non-violence to one segment of society and allowing the rest to exercise their own choice amounts to put the former at the mercy of violence-prone communities and persons. Men of non-violence like Gandhi are often devoted to self-realisation or their identity with God. For them politics is a means to achieve their religious goals. They do not care much even if others do not follow them and go on indulging in their own misdeeds.

Such godmen have little time for the reorganisation of society and state on realistic basis. By the time, a good number of people begin to develop absolute faith in them, they happen to disappear from the scene leaving the society in a vacuum, rather in worse condition. At many times, non-violence in some cases becomes a cover for their cowardice, imbecility, servility, weakness and ignorance.

Often ‘intention’ of the leader is considered to be the core element of non-violence. But a pious wish or faith in peace is not enough. Society is largely concerned not with mere intentions or motives, but also with short and long term results, outcomes and consequences of non-violence.

Upload and Share Your Article: