[PDF] Rights, Liberty and Equality (Comparative Analysis)

Introduction:

The three concepts—rights, liberty and equality—are as old. as political theory. Even the people of Greek city-states were conscious of these three basic concepts of political theory and their consciousness is evident from their eagerness to participate, in a direct manner, in the affairs of the state—in fact, the Greek city- states were blessed with direct democracy.

Even today while we mention about any form of direct democracy (such as referendum, initiative, participation in open assembly etc.) we refer to the Greek system that prevailed in the functioning of city- states. The vital aspects of direct democracy are three basic principles of democracy that is rights, liberty and equality.

The democratic messages of Greek city-states were almost buried in oblivion during the Roman period and middle ages. But the messages found a new lease of life in the hands of Rousseau (1712-1778). In recent years the scholars have interpreted Rousseau’s thought in different ways and at least on one message there is a broad-based agreement and it is liberty (freedom) is the most valuable and coveted thing.

We feel that Rousseau is still remembered by the students of political science (other students of social sciences also read him seriously). But his theory of freedom is well-linked with two other concepts—rights and equality. It is especially evident in his open assembly concept wherever one participates.

Origin of the Concepts:

There is a famous comment of Prof. Ernest Barker. Once he said—Human consciousness postulates liberty, liberty involves rights and rights demand the state. Though this comment does not include equality we can unhesitatingly add equality to it. It is a common sense idea that without equality liberty cannot exist at all. Rights, liberty and equality are closely linked and work together. Though the historicity of the social contract theory is very often questioned by political scientists.

The fundamental truth that comes out of the doctrine is that for greater amount of rights, liberty, equality and their protection the people of the state of nature decided to lay the foundation of civil body with a government whose chief function would be to provide protective net for the democratic principles. All the three exponents (Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau) of the Social Contract did not conceal their view or motive.

People of the state of nature spontaneously decided to set up civil society which implies that they had freedom and while making agreement or contract all of them were on the same footing. It means that all of them enjoyed equality and liberty.

The concept of rights also comes out of the contract theory. How? When they took the decision there was no sign of resistance and by exercising their right to do anything for greater benefit. Hence it is quite manifest that Social Contract theory embodies these three principles of political theory.

Purpose of the Three:

A close scrutiny of the three principles (many political scientists—as for example Barker—call rights, liberty and equality as principles of democracy) reveals that their purposes are same. The chief aims are the overall development of the inherent qualities of individuals and establish justice in the society. Laski’s definitions of rights and liberty are not very much different.

Defining rights he observes that rights are the condition of social life which is essential for the development of best self of a man. He calls liberty an atmosphere in which men will have the opportunity for the attainment of best selves. In the background of this we can reasonably say that rights and liberty are just two ways to reach the coveted goal for development of best selves.

How rights and liberties are protected? Laski has said that a state does not create rights, it simply recognizes them. Before the emergence or creation of state there existed rights. It is, so to say, the duty of the state is to protect the rights by enacting new laws or amending the old ones.

It is to be noted here that not all rights come under the purview of the state because all the rights may not be conducive to the development of individuals’ personalities. The state is obliged (both legally and morally) to recognise those rights which are clearly helpful for the realisation of the best qualities of men. Naturally state shall proceed to their protection. Here we find that the state has a very crucial role in regard to the protection.

Rights and liberties are not separate concepts. Since, liberty means the mainte­nance of an atmosphere in which men will have the scope to fulfill their good aim Viewed from this angle liberty can reasonably be regarded as the product of rights. He continues “without rights there cannot be liberty, because without rights, men are the subjects of law unrelated to the needs of personality”. Let us explain the relationship between rights and liberties in the following simple way.

An individual has the right to pursue his own objective in his own way, to develop his noble qualities without doing any harm to others, to lead a good and peaceful life and many others. The point is, the individual concerned has rights to do all these. But rights alone are not sufficient. To have right and the scope for their implementation are two separate issues and need careful treatment.

Laski and almost all political scientists are of opinion that rights require for them an atmosphere and this is liberty. So we can say that both rights and liberty are closely linked. To put it figuratively, they are the two sides of the same coin. The existence of rights practically will not carry any weight if they are not made to accompany liberty. Man can claim rights but, at the same time, he must have liberty to exercise right.

A man may have political rights but without economic liberty he will not have the scope to exercise the rights to which he is legally entitled. It is particularly evident in countries where emphasis is always given to political rights and economic liberty is neglected. It is alleged that it particularly happens in the USA and other liberal democracies.

Rights have been called a special type of guarantees; at least Prof. Harold Laski thinks so. The guarantees must emanate from the government. It must assure the citizens that they have the full freedom to enjoy all the liberties without creating any disadvantage or harm to fellow citizens. Guarantees generally came from the authority in the form of law or policy or decision. It is also to be noted here that guarantees are made for all and do not allow special privileges.

Rules are the best and most powerful guarantors of rights and, simultaneously of liberty. When there is a rule of law it will be obvious that the liberty of one will never be dependent on the pleasure or whims of some other persons. Thus, both rights and liberty rule out the presence of special privileges.

The term guarantee, law and absence of special privileges induce us to think about equality. In our analysis of equality we have endeavoured to show that equality does not recognise the presence of special privileges, rather it abhors it because special privileges violate the equality. When the freedom of one depends upon the pleasure of another, Laski remarks, it cannot be freedom in real sense.

One will not have the scope to dictate the life and activities of others. Equality denotes that all the privileges shall be allotted to all. This is the basic principle of equality and in this principle is also implicit both rights and liberty. How? Everyone has this right to have privileges and he can claim it. To have rights is not all, for its implementation a congenial atmosphere is needed and this is liberty. We, thus, find that rights, liberties and equality are closely connected.

Both for rights
and liberty the control of state or the intervention by government is essential. Here two points must be duly considered. One is, state intervention does not mean the state will intervene “at every turn and twist of individual life”. If the authority decides to control the behaviour of individual or every trifling matter that will make life unbearable and entail loss of liberty.

It will also lead to non-implementation of rights. However, it cannot be said definitely how much intervention by state will be helpful for rights and liberty. It depends on manifold factors. Our second point is. “The incidence of state action is unbiased”. The activities of the state must be impartial. Partiality will undoubtedly violate the basic norms of equality. Partiality means the abnegation of rule of law. Our practical experience teaches us different lesson. No state authority is hundred percent impartial. Assuming this situation, it has been suggested that the state should try to be impartial as far as practicable.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Top 6 Significant of Communication Theory

1. Davies and Lewis have paid a glowing tribute to Karl Deutsch for his communication theory. Let us quote them: “If it should prove possible, as David Easton has suggested, to devise a theory of the behaviour of political phenomena that can provide a complete explanation of the basic processes of those phenomena— whether they be found within the state or beyond its borders—then the work of Karl Deutsch will have constituted one of the major steps in this direction”.

This observation of Davies and Lewis carries sufficient weight and good deal of reason. We all know that Easton, in fact, laid the foundation of general systems theory in its modern form and Deutsch threw his labour, intellect and energy to the cause of its advancement of accuracy. Purpose of both Easton and Deutsch is almost same to build up an acceptable fabric of a new theory which we call general systems theory.

Easton laid emphasis on input output model, feedback mechanism and interactions among the systems on the one hand and interaction between political system and environment. Deutsch did not deny it.

But he started to view political system from a quite different angle. He reminded us of the situation that all the social systems as well as political system are inter connected by a network of communication. Political system works on the basis of communication and in it there is less importance of power and enforcement.

2. Easton applied the methods and techniques of science and anthropology to explain and clarify the political phenomena. By doing this he wanted to establish that political system is an open system and it is characterized by interactions among various systems and environment.

On the other hand, Karl Deutsch applied cybernetics to political system and his analysis abandoned the traditional power theory and other concepts. Deutsch, with the help of cybernetics, has tried to convince us that the growth, change, functioning and other dynamic aspects of political system are largely governed by a system of communication network. People’s behaviour, activities of the political system and many others are controlled by the communication of information and news which pass through the channels.

So we can say that Deutsch’s theory of cybernetics is aimed at building a general systems theory. The formulation devised by Deutsch is simply a formulation of general systems theory. Political system is one of the various systems of society and also a part of the whole environment. Deutsch’s work (The Nerves of Government) can aptly be treated as an elaboration and explanation of some assumption which Easton made in his theory.

The conceptualization made by Easton and Deutsch is a furtherance of “life processes” of political system. The approach of the two stalwarts is different but the objective is the same.

3. Communications theory of Karl Deutsch is very candid and assertive about the nature of political system and relationship of various agencies: (a) How the political system works and in what way news and information pass from one agency or structure to other agency/structure? (b) We also come to know about the capability of political system. These are the two important contributions made by Deutsch.

Though the communication theory or cybernetics has been borrowed from engineer­ing, by applying it to political system, Deutsch has shown to us how the various agencies are interlinked. Here agencies/structures mean institutions and organisations such as political parties, pressure groups etc.

In liberal political system all these have immense importance and these in fact to a large extent manage the political system. Before Deutsch we had an overall conception about a liberal political system but his analysis has opened the nook and corner of the system. Deutsch’s analysis also states that the inflow, outflow of information, its impact upon the system, the decision of the authority in response to the claim and various others related matters help us understand the capability of the system.

The system has self-regulatory mechanism no doubt but the ability to respond is also important. If the system is weak that is not capable of responding to the elements coming out of the environment, ultimately chaos and trouble will characterize society.

4. Easton’s analysis enabled us to be acquainted with the idea that political system is an open system and Deutsch’s analysis has furthered that formulation. Easton analysed the actions and reactions among the systems and the impact of the elements (originating from the environment) upon the political system. Admitting this Deutsch has further pointed out that the communication network is of vital importance.

If this fails the system will not work or even if it works that will not be up to satisfaction. The successful working of cybernetics also leads us to conclude that the political system is dynamic which means it is always in an unstable position.

At one point the equilibrium is reached and in the next moment that equilibrium position is disturbed and a new equilibrium appears—and in this way political system works. Deutsch calls it unstable equilibrium, which means equilibrium changes.

5. From Deutsch’s analysis we come to gather several other concepts such as growth, social change etc. These are very well-known terms and economists, political scientists, sociologists and many other persons including Marx have dealt with these concepts with a lot of erudition and finesse. But Deutsch’s analysis is a class by itself.

He has entered into the true nature and depth of the working of political system. The cybernetics makes it an assurance that the political system is always working that is it is in operation in order to cope with the challenges.

It is interesting to note that the use of political power, enforcement of decision, threat to the use of force etc. are not recognised by Karl Deutsch. All these might have an importance in the management of system, but changes and growth are occasioned by the communication mechanism.

Neither Gabriel Almond nor Karl Deutsch see any reason in Marxian concept of social change caused by class struggle or revolution. In the opinion of Deutsch, power is an aspect of politics but it never constitutes the core of it.

The communication theory propounded by Deutsch can be treated as a tool of social change but such a change is different from change envisaged by Marx. Deutsch’s tool professes to keep the liberal structure intact.

6. It has been claimed by some that commu­nications theory is very much particular and limited. It concentrates its attention upon the working of the political system. Others are of the view that Deutsch’s theory is still in its embryonic stage. It requires detailed examination and development.

More hypotheses are to be constructed, more and more data and facts are to be collected, and the functions of the groups and organisations are to be verified with the help of more data. Deutsch has simply built up some hypotheses but these are not enough.

The theory is itself very attractive but the attractiveness does not justify the worth and widest acceptability. Larger amount of scientific methods are to be pressed into service so that the communications theory can acquire a good position in political science. It has certain shortcomings, but the theory itself is attractive.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Planning Commission in India: History, Functions and Procedure

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. History of Planning in India 2. Role, Functions and Responsibilities of Planning Commission 3. National Development Council 4. India’s Five-Year Plans 5. Planning Procedure 6. Planning Commission and Administration 7. Alternative to Planning.

History of Planning in India:

Planning Commission in India has come to say as an important organ of development administration and process. Nation’s every activity today revolves round this organisation. Unless funds for a project are made available by the Commission, the work cannot go on.

India, quite for some time, has been playing with the idea of planned economy in the country. As early as in 1876, when Dadabhai Naoroji wrote his ‘Poverty of India’ it was realised that India’s poverty could be eradicated only if efforts in some planned way were made.

It was in 1933 that M. Visvesvaraya came out with his ten year plan with the target of doubling the income of the country. In 1938, Indian National Congress set up a National Planning Committee under the Presidentship of Late Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru.

The work of the Committee was, however, hampered due to the outbreak of Second World War. In 1941, the then Government of India realised the need and necessity of some sort of planning body in India and appointed a Committee for Planning. In 1943, this Committee was replaced by the Reconstruction Committee of the Executive Council, which was headed by the Governor General himself.

A year later in 1944, a separate Planning and Development Department was set up by the Government of India. Simultaneously some industrialists of India came forward, with ‘Bombay Plan’ aiming at economic development of the country in a planned way.

In 1946, an Advisory Planning Board was set up by the interim Government of India with K.C. Neogi as its Chairman. It was to make recommendations about co-ordination and improvement of planning, future planning machinery and set objectives and priorities.

It was of the view that there should be a single and compact authoritative organisation concerning itself with the whole field of development and be made responsible direct to the cabinet.

It also suggested that such a body be named as Planning Commission. The Commission’s members should be persons with general experience of public affairs on the one hand and be drawn from industry, science and technology on the other with no Minister as its member.

In 1948, National Planning Committee was accordingly set up by the government. The Planning Commission was actually set up on 15th March, 1950, by a resolution of the Government of India and started its work on 28th March, 1950.

At present in India Planning Commission has no constitutional status. In November 1989 when National Front Government took over at the Centre, Hegde was made Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. Immediately after his taking over he announced that the government proposed to give constitutional status to the Commission.

The re-constituted commission will include three opposition ruled state Chief Ministers, each one having a year’s term of office. But no change could be brought about because the government went out of power after about a year.

Planning Defined:

Though it has been defined in several ways yet for our purposes it means government’s arrangement regarding allocation of country’s labour, foreign exchange, raw materials and other resources between different branches of economy.

Prof. K.T. Shah has said that, “Planning in a democratic system may be defined as technical coordination by disinterested experts of consumption, production, investigation, trade and income distribution in accordance with special objectives set by bodies representative of nation.”

Thus, planning is deliberate choice of economic priorities and allocation of resources for achieving certain objectives in a given period of time.

It helps in taking major economic decisions on the basis of comprehensive survey of the whole national economy. Thus, planning is conscious and deliberate act which is undertaken with a definite aim.

It covers not only production but also distribution and tries to achieve all those socio-economic objectives which have already been determined. A good planning should be comprehensive and in it there should be a single central authority which should not only plan but also coordinate diverse economic activities.

Objectives of planning differ from country to country. Much depends on what stage of economic development the nation is but every plan aims at economic development of the nation, better utilisation of national resources more employment, price control, financial stability and reduction of economic gap between the rich and the poor.

Role, Functions and Responsibilities of Planning Commission:

In India both material and personnel resources being very limited, the Commission has been given the responsibility of making an assessment of the material capital and human resources of the country and also of investigating the possibility of augmentation of such resources. It is expected to suggest ways and means by which deficient resources in relation to nation’s requirements can be met.

Then its another role and responsibility is to give the country plans for the most effective and balanced utilisation of country’s resources, both available and potential from within and without.

It has also been given the responsibility on the one hand to determine priorities and stages at which plans should be carried out and on the other suggest allocation of resources which may be needed for successful completion of each stage. The Commission is also required to pin point hindrances which can retard nation’s economic development.

The Resolution also says that it is the responsibility of this Commission to ‘appraise from time to time the progress achieved in execution of each stage of plan and recommend adjustments of policy and measures that such appraisal may consider necessary’.

Lastly, it has been said in the Resolution that the Commission will also make, “Such ancillary recommendations as appear to be appropriate either for the discharge of duties assigned to it; or on a consideration of prevailing economic conditions, current policies, measures and development programmes, or on an examination of such specific problems as may be referred to it for advice by the Central or State Governments for facilitating the discharge of the duties assigned to it.”

Planning Commission by this resolution of the government is, thus, expected to perform a very key-role in the economic development of the country.

The Commission is an advisory body. It is headed by Prime Minister and usually has full time Deputy Chairman, who at times has been politician (e.g., C. Subrartianian, Shri N.D. Tiwari, Solanki, G.L. Nanda, Hegde and parnab Mukerjee who held this position in addition to that of Union Minister of External Affairs while at other times economist e.g., Dr. Gadgil, D.T. Lakadawala and Dr. Man Mohan Singh.

To ensure that Planning Commission performs its desired role, it maintains a close liaison with the cabinet. Whereas members of the Commission are invited, as and when necessary, by the cabinet and its committees, the Commission also does not act in vacuum but takes full cognisance of important economic issues which arise in the Ministries.

“Thus, there is a regular stream of ideas and suggestions flowing from the Commission to the Union Government and vice versa.” This co-ordination between Cabinet and Commission has enabled the latter to play its role in a much better way.

Organisation of the Commission:

Though members of the Commission act as a body, yet in order to facilitate working they have clear demarcation of work. Each full time member has been given specific subjects to be dealt with by him. The members of the Commission are assisted by programme advisers and many other senior officers. Then there is secretariat of the Commission, which is headed by a Secretary.

It is divided into several, divisions, some of these being Agriculture and Rural Development; Economic, Education, Finance Resources; Employment and man-power; Housing, Urban Development and Water Supply and Irrigation; Health and Family Welfare; Industry and Mineral; Land Reforms; Transport and Communication; Statistics and Surveys; Power and Energy; Monitoring and Information; Perspective Planning; Social Welfare; Plan Information and Public Cooperation; Programme Administration and Command Area Development.

It has also several technical divisions. Various Divisions of the Commission also look after follow up of plan projects, for which several committees have been set up. Research Programmes Committee, Committee on Irrigation and Power Projects and Coordination Committee are some such committees.

In addition there is an autonomous body working under the guidance of Planning Commission known as Programme Evaluation Organisation. The members of the Commission are expected to work on the principle of joint and collective responsibility and discharge their functions on the basis of collective wisdom.

But with the passage of time, it has, however, been seen that each member of the Commission jealously tends to retain his monopolistic grip over the portfolios allocated to him resulting in an inhibiting effect on the expression of views by other experts.

Obviously this is not a healthy trend and Administrative Reforms Commission has come forward with the suggestion that all important decisions should be taken by the members collectively either at a meeting or by circulation.

A.R.C. has also suggested that each member of the Planning Commission should have full freedom to call for a file belonging to the portfolio of some other member and record his views on that, if need be.

Salient Features of Planning in India:

Planning system has come to stay in India. It has its own features. It is a system in which planning process starts from above as well as from below. Thus, it involves the people as well as policy-makers. National Front Government which took over from Congress (I) at the Centre in November, 1989 was of the view that the planning should start from below.

It made extensive use of public enterprises and used the help ‘of cooperative and private enterprises. It followed the principle of mixed economy. In it there was high degree of centralisation.

The Commission exercises tight control over the projects which are approved by it, though it is not directly responsible for implementation of plan programmes. The stales have less role in planning process for two reasons – firstly: ultimate say is with the Centre and secondly, the states have not that much expertise in planning as the Centre has.

National Development Council:

It was with the object of involving states in planning process that National Development Council was set up in 1952 though, the idea was mooted in 1946.

In 1967, based on the recommendations and suggestions of the A.R.C., the Government of India outlined the following functions of the Council:

(a) To give guidelines for the formulation of national plans;

(b) To help in assessing plan resources;

(c) To consider plans as formulated by the Planning Commission;

(d) To deal with important questions of social and economic policies, which have a bearing on national development;

(e) To review the working of the plan from time to time and suggest measures for speedy achievement of plan targets;

(f) To suggest measures to secure active participation and co-operation of the people in planning process;

(g) To suggest ways and means for improving efficiency of administrative services dealing with plan implementation.

(h) To suggest measures for building up resources for national development.

(i) To ensure the fullest development of less advanced regions and sections of community.

The Council is a very powerful body, which, is headed by the Prime Minister himself. All the State Chief Ministers, Lt. Governor and Chief Executive Councillor Delhi, Administrators of Union Territories, Members of Planning Commission, Food, Home, Finance and Defence Ministers of the Central Cabinet are members of the Council. The Council usually meets twice a year though there is no rigidity about it.

Role of NDC:

It is useful link between the States, Central Government and Planning Commission. Its recommendations are today accepted as policy directives. The NDC provides a very effective forum for vindicating grievances and focusing attention of the central government and Planning Commission about implementation and execution of the Planning policies and programmes at the central level.

Once the matters have been thrashed at NDC level and targets fixed quick and earnest efforts are made to raise plan resources for achieving targets. It also creates a sense of responsibility among the states for making the plan a success and does not make them feel that the Plan has been imposed on them by super-bosses.

Some voices have, however, been raised against NDC. It has been said that since its inception it has virtually relegated Planning Commission to status of a research arm.

In 1959, whereas H.M. Patel said that it was superior to Planning Commission, K. Santhanam assessed its position by saying that its position was approximate to that of super cabinet of the entire Indian federation. But there seems to be no dispute in its occupying a pivotal position in the planning system of India.

While assessing its importance one of its former Vice-Chairman, V.T. Krishnamachari said, “It provides a forum in which the Union Minister and Chief Ministers of States discuss the plans at important stages in their formulation….” The Council also considers social and economic policies affecting the country from national point of view so that where necessary, uniformity may be secured.

India’s Five-Year Plans:

First Three Five-Year Plans:

Most important task of the Planning Commission in India is to give the country five-year plans. First such plan covered the period of 1951-56, which involved a total outlay of Rs.3,360 crores of which Rs.1,560 crores were in the public sector. The aim of the plan was to increase production of food and raw materials and to develop irrigation and power projects.

It also aimed at enlarging the scope of employment and consolidating progress in the field of social services. It was hoped that the plan would help in rapid increase in the rate of development in less developed states. Priority was given to key industries, like iron and steel and manufacture of electrical equipments.

1956-61 period was covered under Second Five-Year Plan, with total outlay of Rs.6,750 crores, out of which Rs.3,650 crores were in the public sector. The Plan objective was to considerably increase national income and to take India on the path of industrialisation.

It laid stress on development of basic and heavy industries. The plan also promised expansion of employment opportunities and reduction of inequalities in income, thereby promising even distribution of economic power.

Third Five-Year Plan covered the period 1961-66 with total outlay of Rs.10,200 crores. Out of this only Rs.4,000 cror
es were in private, whereas Rs.6,200 crores were in the private sector. Its main objectives were to have secure above 5% p.a. rise in national income to sustain growth rate in subsequent plans and to obtain increased self-sufficiency in food grains.

Another objective was to expand basic industries, to meet requirements of further industrialisation, to ensure substantial increase in employment opportunities as well as to reduce economic inequalities.

After the Third Five-Year Plan there was Indo-Pakistan conflict and also there were severe drought in the country. There were also such problems as devaluation of currency and general rise in prices resulting in erosion of resources available for plan purposes.

This delayed the finalisation of Fourth Five-Year Plan. Therefore, in between 1966 and 1969, there were three annual plans. Each plan, of course, took into consideration conditions prevailing in those days.

Efforts were undoubtedly made to make the best use of the situation but on the whole the state of economy and the non-availability of financial resources for plan purposes kept down the size of development outlay during this period.

Fourth Five-Year Plan:

Fourth Five-Year Plan had an outlay of Rs.24,822 crores, out of which Rs.15,902 crores were for public and remaining Rs.8,920 crores in the private sector. The plan had several objectives. It also provided for an annual growth rate of at least 5% and that during the plan period priority would be given to the production of fertilisers and agricultural equipments.

It also said that deficit financing would be avoided to check inflationary tendencies, which economy was not bearing. It was made amply clear that only such new schemes would be undertaken which were essential to keep up the momentum of growth already built up and to meet basic needs of the country during plan period. In order to check population growth it was provided that there would be a massive family planning drive in the country.

Fifth Five-Year Plan:

The Fifth Five-Year Plan began on April 1, 1974 at a time when the economy was facing severe inflationary pressures. It had a total outlay of Rs.66,353, crores, with a public sector outlay of Rs.39,304 crores. The objectives of the Plan being 5.5% overall rate of growth of gross domestic product and expansion of productive employment.

It laid stress on agriculture and, key and basic industries producing goods for mass consumption. The plan also laid stress on an equitable price wages income balance and on taking institutional, fiscal and other measures for the reduction of social, economic and regional inequalities.

It was provided that plan resources would be mobilised by way of taxation, borrowing and pricing policies in relation to public enterprises.

The planners also promised generation of employment in the rural areas so that regional imbalances would be removed. The plan very clearly said that the objectives were removal of poverty and achievement of self-reliance.

New Role of Planning Commission:

In 1977, Janata Government came into power at the Centre. The new government was of die view that the targets and approaches to the plan should be changed. In the view of the government the system of capital-intensive industries and mechanised farms had failed and that there should be stress on cottage industries.

It was also maintained that the role and function of the Commission should now be to increase productivity through larger self-employment opportunities. It was suggested by the Government to the Commission that the plan proposals should be now so revised that there should be increased stress on agriculture, cottage and small-scale industries. Efforts should also be directed to develop rural infrastructure facilities.

Planning Commission was also reconstituted and at its first meeting held on 3 July, 1977, the Commission agreed that the aim of the Five-Year Plan should be to very substantially reduce unemployment, disparities in income and that adequate provision be made for meeting public needs.

Rolling Plan Concept:

In order to have greater flexibility and realism in planning the Commission decided that with effect from 1st April, 1978 Rolling Plan Concept should be put into practice. Under this concept Five-Year Plan will be continued to be formulated on five year basis but plan targets, resources, etc., will be revised every year in the light of performance of various sectors.

It was also suggested that plan should have time bound annual targets with stress on removal of unemployment and reduction of disparities in wealth. Annual Plan Guidelines for the year 1978-79 suggested to the State Governments that it should he ensured that irrigation and other projects, which were already in progress should be completed as early as possible.

Under the new schemes priority should be given to irrigation and power sectors and continuing schemes in agriculture and related activities should be provided for at least at the same rate as these were in the current year.

1978-83 Plan:

Since the concept of rolling plan did not rule out five year plans therefore the government also prepared a plan document.

The Draft Plan provided that the principal objectives of planning should now be defined as achieving within a period of 10 years:

(a) The removal of unemployment and significant underemployment;

(b) An appreciable rise in the standard of living of the poorest section of the population;

(c) provision by the state of some of the basic needs of the people in these income groups like clean drinking water, adult literacy, elementary education, health care, rural roads, rural housing for the landless and minimum services for urban slums.

The draft plan covering the period 1978-83 provided for an outlay of Rs.1,16,240 crores, of which outlay in the public sector was kept at Rs.69,380 crores. It was expected that there will be potential for 5.5% growth by the end of the period. There will also be substantial employment at the end of the plan along with eradication of poverty and establishment of more equal society.

The planners also promised that within a period of next ten years not only the unemployment would be reduced but there would be appreciable rise in the living standard of the poor people and some basic needs would be provided to these people.

Draft Plan being basically rural oriented laid maximum stress on integrated rural development, agriculture, cottage and small-scale industries and so on. It was hoped by the planners that per capita consumption level would rise by about 3% during 1983-88.

Overall Resources of this plan (1978-83) were provided as under:

Overall Resources

As regards public sector outlay of Rs.69,380 proposed to finance that in the following manner:

The plan did not much take off because early in 1980 there were elections in the country and Janata party was ousted from power. The new government decided to change the targets and approaches to the Plan.

Sixth Five-Year Plan:

Sixth Five-Year Plan covered the period of 1980-85. Janata government had fixed its own targets but before the plan could be implemented that government went out of power and Congress (I) prepared its own plan.

The plan aimed at removal of pov
erty and make the country self-reliant. It wanted to provide more employment opportunities particularly in the rural areas and unorganised sector. It also wanted to strengthen infrastructure for both agriculture and industry.

The plan envisaged a total investment of Rs.1,58,710 crores at 1979-80 level. Out of this Rs.97,500 crores were meant for public sector. It was hoped that the economy would grow at 5.2 per cent a year during the plan period.

The plan aimed at making special efforts to give more share to the poor sections of society in national income through rural employment and anti-poverty programmes like IRDP and NREP. Special attention was paid to immediate as well as long-term needs of agricultural commodities both for domestic consumption and export. It also aimed at promoting small-scale and cottage industries.

It was also provided that attention will be paid to providing social services like elementary education, rural health, rural water, housing, niral electrification, etc.

It also laid special stress on science and technology for securing maximum utilisation of natural resources. It also envisaged on efficient public distribution system and on proper procurement, transportation and storage; system of essential commodities. It aimed at mobilisation of resources.

It covered a period of 1980-81 to 1984-85. The 1980-81 plan outlay was fixed at Rs. 1,51,019 crores against that additional expenditure was estimated at Rs.14,832 crores.

In December 1981, priorities and resources were re-allocated because of demands from the core areas namely Petroleum exploration and power generation.

Sixth five-year plan helped in sustaining the impulses of growth. It could reach the 5.2% growth rate as fixed in the plan but it failed to achieve target in such key industries as steel, fertilisers, cement and textiles. Industrial production also did not touch fixed targets. It made good advancement in technological field.

Seventh Five-Year Plan:

It covered a period of 1985-90. It came into operation on 1-4-1985. It kept 15 years period in view. It also aimed at removing poverty and providing social justice. It also aimed at speeding up economic and technological modernisation.

It laid stress on agriculture and introducing land reforms. It wanted to lay stress on anti-poverty programmes. It also wanted to have a self-reliant industrial economy and have the fullest human resource development.

In the Seventh plan total public sector outlay is of the order of Rs.1,80,000 crores. The G.D.P. at factor cost is expected to be 5 per cent over the Sixth Plan.

The main aim of the plan being to remove illiteracy, unemployment, poverty and provide food, clothing and shelter, particularly to weaker section of society.

Eight Five-Year Plans (1990-95):

The Plan was approved by the Commission in August 1989. It aims at achieving growth rate of 6% p.a. over the plan period. It lays stress on decentralisation of planning process at all levels and to increase exports to meet increasing import requirements of the economy and to increase foreign exchange reserves.

The plan aims at the following:

(1) To provide clean drinking water to all by 1995 and to achieve health for all by 2000 A.D.

(2) To have annual average growth rate of 6 per cent over the period of 1990-95.

(3) To protect environment and to promote ecological balance.

(4) To reduce the population below poverty line by another 10 per cent.

(5) To provide universal elementary education and eradicate illiteracy among working age population.

(6) To achieve 4 per cent employment growth rate to solve the problem of unemployment of rural people and urban poor.

(7) To achieve self-reliance and modernisation through proper use of science and technology.

(8) To ensure annual average food grain availability at 19.5 kg per person by the end of 8th plan.

(9) To ensure development of women, children and other vulnerable groups.

Planning Procedure:

States Involvement in Planning Procedure:

In planning process, the Commission does not unilaterally act, but very actively involves the State Governments in it. In India first draft of the plan is prepared by the Planning Commission after consulting Ministries of central government and state governments and taking into consideration available and potential resources.

Draft proposals are then placed before National Development Council and after it has reacted to Draft the plan, it is circulated to the Union Ministries and State governments. At the state level there is a well-developed plan co-ordination system in which Secretaries of various development departments are involved. In the states there are separate State Planning Boards.

The plan is finally approved by the State Cabinet. Since the demands put on the Commission are always very heavy, as compared with the available resources, therefore, the Commission takes several factors into consideration while making its suggestions on the plan proposals e.g., availability of resources, administrative and technical manpower, removal of regional imbalances, extent to which resources can be raised from internal and external sources, population of the state, availability of raw material, economic conditions of the people, nation’s tax paying capacity and blending of the schemes in such a way that economic resources and social needs are fully met. Thus, task of the planners is no way easy.

After taking all these factors into consideration, the Commission prepares a draft plan which is then widely circulated to the Union Ministries, State Governments, the public, political parties and all concerned and their comments and suggestions are invited. The draft plan is considered by the central cabinet and in the states at different levels before it is finally approved as official plan document

Planning Commission being an advisory body has nothing to do with the implementation part of the plan. It has not been given any responsibility to directly administer any plan project.

It, however, plays a very significant role by providing necessary information about achieving the plan targets by giving wide publicity to plan objectives and suggesting ways and means by which hindrances, if any, can be removed. The Commission evaluates plan projects and programmes.

Committee on Plan Projects:

The Committee on Plan Projects was set up in 1956, as a result of resolution of National Development Council. It is headed by Home Minister, with Planning Minister and Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission as its members. Some State Chief Ministers are nominated by the Prime Minister on this Committee. Union Cabinet Ministers concerned with a particular project are invited, when necessary.

The Committee inspects on the spot important projects approved by the Commission and suggests ways and means by which plans can be executed efficiently and wasteful expenditure avoided. It is also expected of the Committee to make the result of its studies available to other projects, so that all are benefited by that. It also suggests ways and means by which economies can be introduced without sacrificing efficiency.

Programme Evaluation Organisation:

Programme Evaluation Organisation was set up in 1952 with the assistance of Ford Foundation. It functions under over all supervision and control of Planning Commission and in close co-operation with Ministries of Government of India. It provides necessary statistical data and information to the Commission.

The organisation scrutinises reports which are received from the field for the preparation of final report. It has been allowed to function independen
tly, without any interference from even the Planning Commission. The organisation is required to have general appraisal of the progress of the programme and conduct field surveys with a view to finding out the effect of the programme on the life of the society.

The organisation is neither concerned with the checking of figures nor finding out whether investment being made commensurate with the success achieved, but is concerned with finding out how far the methods being used are suited for successful implementation of the programme.

Since it is an advisory body, it is not binding on the government to accept its recommendations. It also aims at winning the co-operation of the people for community development programmes.

Co-ordination Committee for Public Co-operation:

It is one of the Advisory Committees of the Planning Commission which was set up in 1952 with a view to winning the co-operation of the public in the execution of plan programmes. It has eminent persons drawn from different walks of life as its members. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Commission usually remain associated with it.

Advisory Committee on Irrigation and Power Projects:

It is another advisory committee of the Commission. It helps in the scrutiny of various schemes prepared by the government bodies about irrigation and power programmes, including their financial and technical aspects. Minister of Planning is its Chairman. It includes representatives from Ministries of Irrigation and Powers.

Planning Commission’s Performance:

Planning Commission is now 45 years old and during its existence it has given seven Five-Year Plans to the country. During the period of its existence it has considerably helped in the growth of national economy, but still it suffers from several defects.

Criticism of Planning Commission:

There is, however, mounting criticism that Planning Commission in India has failed to perform its role. Take e.g., employment. Every time the nation is fed on the promise that unemployment will be ended and poverty eradicated, but no substantial break- through has been made.

The number of people living below poverty line is very high and unemployment is of serious magnitude. It is also said that the Commission has obviously failed to play its role of distributive justice. As a result of plans all have not been benefited, but the rich have become richer and poor still poorer.

Then it is said the Commission’s role should have been both in the field of production as well as distribution. But whereas it has played its role in the field of production, it has completely ignored distribution. This has resulted in defective distribution and the benefits of production have not reached the masses.

The Commission is empowered to make discretionary grants to the states. This makes the states dependent on the Centre and weakens our federal structure which is already very weak. Not only has this but it quite often resulted in friction between the Centre and the states.

It is also said that it has greatly under minded the authority of Finance Commission.

Then it is pointed out that the planners have failed to involve the masses in the plan process. They have failed to make the rural folk an integral part of the plan process. In the villages either there is no plan consciousness or there is a feeling that it is an imposition from above. This has much retarded the progress of the plans.

It was expected of the planners that they would play a balancing role between the material, capital and human resources but the Commission has not played its role too well in this regard as well. As and when there has been occasion and necessity, the Commission has pruned and cut down amounts from social welfare activities, rather than any other field of activity.

One reason responsible for the failure of plans is said to be federal and democratic structure of the country. The states in India are always highly critical of the planning process which relegates them to subordinate position. In a democratic state like India it is very difficult to have consent for the use of limited resources in the face of heavy demands from everywhere.

It was expected of the Planning Commission to be merely an Advisory body but it has become a policy-making agency. The technical experts in the presence of top political bosses do not express themselves freely.

Then Planning Commission was supposed to bring down agricultural population in India. But with the passage of time it is seen that neither agricultural population nor landless labour has come down. Its role in this regard has too not been much success.

Then another criticism is that functions of Planning Commission get overlapped with those of some other Ministries. This not only results in waste of labour but also of resources as well.

The planners can take credit that they have played their role in the agricultural field, where India has successfully entered the era of Green Revolution. But the critics point out that such a revolution has also resulted in the creation of only few rural elites and the agricultural masses have not risen above their poverty miseries.

It is also said that the setting up of the Commission has upset the federal structure of the country. Through its national plans it has greatly upset the actual distribution of powers between the centre and the states.

It is also said that because memberships of Planning Commission is on the basis of political patronage, therefore, the members have become docile. They see the mood of political bosses before talking and give their advice to suit their convenience, to the extent possible.

Because of political domination many competent and talented experts do not feel inclined to accept membership of the Commission, which is a national loss.

With the passage of time it has been seen that implementation is the weakest link of the whole planning system. Targets fixed by the plans have never been achieved. There is always a wide gaps between targets and performance.

Planning Commission and Administration:

After independence sphere of state activity has considerably increased and such activities which were hitherto out of the sphere of state activity have now come under state purview. There has been considerable increase in administrative activities in public and private establishments.

Due to increased activities contact of the masses with administrators and technocrats has much increased and the role of Planning Commission in administration has too very considerably increased.

There can be no expansion in administration and administrative expenditure cannot be increased without Commission’s approval. Every developmental task must have approval of the Commission before its commencement.

The Commission’s approval of the programmes results in the establishment of special functional cadres and creation of such administrative and executive services as are considered necessary for the successful implementation of plan programmes. Civil servants are to be trained in a manner that they can successfully implement plan projects.

Not only this, but Planning Commission has played a significant role in the delegation of financial powers. Since the planning has brought the people and administrators nearer and closer to each other, therefore, those officers who are even at the lower rank, but come in close contact with the masses, had to be delegated with decision-making powers, so that grievances and problems of the people were redressed and solved on the spot. Thus, they have been made to shoulder more responsibilities.

The Commission has also played a big r
ole in the field of democratic decentralisation. It has also performed its role in the legislative field. Every legislative measure, financial proposal and administrative measure which is introduced in the House has an eye on the allocations of funds and achievement of targets.

No cabinet will usually introduce a measure which has financial implications, but which it feels it cannot get approved from the Commission.

Alternative to Planning:

Much has been said on many forums that Planning Commission is not much a success in India. Some have magnified its failures beyond proportions.

B.S. Minhas once said, “India did follow this strategy of planning and achieved successes in number of areas. However, the figures of Indian planning have been glaring enough to have petty nearly succeeded in pushing its success into pallied insignificance.” But even if it is accepted that the Commission has not played its role fully well to the satisfaction of all, then what is the alternative to planning in India?

The only other alternative can be to have no system of planned economy. Some even today argue that planning is undemocratic and it is not in keeping with our democratic traditions. They go to the extent of saying that planning is nothing else but serfdom.

That apart, if in India Planning system is abandoned then there is every danger that available scarce resources might not be used for priority purposes and be put to use for purposes which are of secondary national importance.

Moreover, “An unplanned action might fail to result in achieving the desired objectives because of different steps in the action being mutually conflicting and not being adequate in view or it may indeed deliver the results but only at the end of unnecessarily long chain of steps.”

India can think of abandoning planning only when economic, social and administrative base has taken deep roots and any shock here and there will not shake the system from its very foundations. Shortfalls and implementation problems have already focused the attention of executors of plans and administrators in public and private sectors.

But each system, planning being no exception, has its inherent defects which are removed with the time and on the strength of experience, which nation gains as the time passes. In spite of critics, defects and shortcomings, the Commission’s role in every walk of India’s national life, more so in the economic sphere is really deep rooted and it is not easy to dispense with that under the present situation.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] National Emergency, 1975 | India

In this article we will discuss about the cause of national emergency, 1975 in India.

On June 28, 1975, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared national emergency in the country, which remained in operation for a period of 19 months. It was declared at a time when emergency due to external aggression of 1971 was already in force.

One of the main causes responsible for the declaration of 1975 emergency was that certain persons were inciting military and police not to obey the orders of the government and interrupt normal functioning of government working. In 1974, an agitation was launched in Gujarat by some opposition parties making it difficult for elected legislators to perform their duties towards the electorates.

They were made to resign in many cases. Not only this, but the central government was forced to conduct fresh elections in the state. In the state there were also many cases of looting, violence and arsons. There was also an agitation in Bihar which aimed at getting the State Assembly dissolved.

The agitators in Bihar in their programme included boycott of school and college examinations, gherao of elected MLAs and also their social boycott, formation of parallel Legislative Assembly, paralysing of work in government offices, non-payment of taxes, boycott of courts and incitement of military, police and public servants.

In May 1974, opposition parties instigated railway employees to go on strike making them realise that a powerful and successful strike in railways could bring the industries to a standstill and make the people of India starve.

The opposition parties in November, 1974 formulated a plan to gherao the Parliament, though the proposal was subsequently abandoned and instead these parties decided to hold massive demonstrations throughout the country, for which organising and coordinating committees were also set up in the country.

Not only this but opposition parties decided that these will create obstructions in Parliament and a willful campaign for denigrating the government and the Prime Minister was started. In the wake came the murder of the then Union Railway Minister L.N. Misra at Samastipur.

Attempt was made at the life of the then Chief Justice of India as well. In fact, an atmosphere of violence and hatred had been created, which made democratic functioning of the government difficult. Opposition parties also formed a national co-ordination committee under the chairmanship of Late Jaya Prakash Narayan for launching a movement of Bihar type throughout the country.

When Allahabad High Court judgment in Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi election case came declaring her election invalid, opposition parties wanted that she should immediately resign, forgetting that as a citizen of India, she also had a right to appeal to the Supreme Court, against the High Court decision.

The opposition parties even threatened to launch a mass movement against the Prime Minister, if she did not resign all at once.

It was in this atmosphere of threat, violence and agitation that national emergency was proclaimed in the country, with the help of an ordinance, under Article 352 (1) of the constitution. Emergency proclamation was subsequently approved by the Parliament.

Emergency is a radical remedy for solving political ills of the country and ensuring that structure of the constitution and country’s social and political systems were not disturbed violently to the disadvantage of the country. In order to make emergency provisions effective some immediate steps became necessary and unavoidable.

Some of the political parties were banned and thus these were refused the right to carrying on their political activities. Several opposition leaders and workers were arrested and put behind the bars. There was also censorship of press in India for the first time after independence.

This was justified by the then Prime Minister when she said that, “There is freedom of expression and debate in democracy but can systematic and virulent character assassination without any basis in fact be indulged in the name of democracy?”

She also said, “We have to resort to press censorship because some newspapers had become total partners of the opposition front and were sapping morale, inciting violence and even advocating murder.”

Maintenance of the Internal Security Act was passed to check speedily and effectively activities of anti-social elements like black marketers, hoarders and profiteers, so that the prices did not shoot up and essential commodities were made easily available to the common man. Right of the people to move the courts of law for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights was suspended in the national interest.

Twenty Point Programmes:

A comprehensive economic programme, commonly known as Twenty-Point Programme was given to the country on 1st July, 1975, for increasing production, ending poverty and unemployment. But it was made clear that only sustained efforts could take the nation forward. Stress was laid both on individual as well as national discipline.

Twenty-Point Programme of Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi included:

(1) Continuance of steps to bring down prices of essential commodities, streamlining of the production, procurement .and distribution of essential commodities, and strict economy in government expenditure.

(2) Implementation of agricultural land ceilings and speedier distribution of surplus land and compilation of land records.

(3) Stepping up of provision of house sites for landless and weaker sections of society.

(4) Making bonded labour and beggary illegal.

(5) Plans to be prepared for the liquidation of rural indebtedness, legislation for moratorium on recovery of debt from landless labourers, small farmers and artisans.

(6) Review of laws on minimum agricultural wages.

(7) Five million more hectares of land to be brought under ground waters.

(8) An accelerated power programme and erection of super-thermal stations under the central control.

(9) New development plans for the growth of handloom sector.

(10) Improvement in quality and supply of people’s cloth.

(11) Socialisation of urban or urbanisable land ceiling on ownership and possession of vacant land, and on the plinth area of new dwelling units.

(12) Special squads for valuation of conspicuous construction and prevention of tax evasion, summary trials and deterrent punishments to economic offenders.

(13) Special legislation for confiscation of smuggler’s properties and action against misuse of import licenses.

(14) New schemes for worker’s associations in industry.

(15) National import scheme for road transport.

(16) Income-tax relief to the middle class exemption limit to be raised to Rs. 8,000/- per annum.

(17) Supply of essential commodities at controlled prices to the students living in hostels.

(18) Supply of books and stationery at controlled prices.

(19) Introduction of new apprenticeship scheme to enlarge employment and training, especially of weaker sections of society.

(20) To ensure speedier movement of goods and passengers.

Whether emergency was essential or unavoidable is now a matter of the past. Similarly whether during this 19 months period the nation achieved less or more is again a matter of controversy, because on such a matter with which not only India but whole of the world was very much concerned, was sure to be controversial.

Whereas on the one hand the Congress party maintained that during this period law and order situation improved, industrial production went up, there were no strikes and lock-outs, international prestige of India went up, national discipline touched new heights, etc., the opposition characterised it a dark period in which there was press censorship, intelligentsia and opposition was suffocated, right of expression was denied and independence of judiciary was take
n out and so on. It was during this period that family planning programme was also started on large scale basis, throughout the country.

But the fact remains that President used his power, which was given to him under the constitution and that such a power could be used again as well. Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Act has, however, made certain changes under which an effort has been made to regulate the power of the President to issue emergency in the country, which can now be issued only when there is armed rebellion.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Period of Commissions and Round-Table Conferences in India

In this article we will discuss about the period of commissions and round-table conferences at the time of British government in India.

British government in India was under heavy strains and quite confident that unless the present Act was modified to the satisfaction of Indians, the situation was not likely to improve. Under the Act of 1919, it had been provided that the British government would set up a commission in 1931 to decide about the extent of political dose to be given to the people of India by modifying the existing system.

But it was forced by the circumstances to set up such a Commission in 1927. It was known as Simon Commission.

It was boycotted everywhere and at most of the places the demonstrators were mercilessly lathi charged. This all Whiteman Commission came to the conclusion that dyarchy should be abolished from the provinces and entire provincial administration should be given to elected Ministers responsible to the legislature.

The government should continue to look after rights of the minorities and that the central government should not be made responsible to the legislature. It was also suggested that the frenchise should be liberalised, legislatures enlarged and the new constitution should be so elastically framed that it developed by itself.

It also recommended enlargement of Provincial Legislative Councils and Constitution of a Provincial fund to ensure adequate financial resources for the provinces without infringing their autonomy. At the Centre there should be bicameral legislature consisting of Federal Assembly and Council of States.

It was of the view that Federal Assembly should be enlarged and should include elected members of Provincial Councils. It preferred federal rather than unitary system for India. It also proposed Council of Greater India to discuss matters of common interest. The Commander-in-Chief need not be a member of Viceroy’s Executive Council.

It was of the opinion that High Courts should be placed under the administrative control of Government of India. Sindh should be separated from Bombay and Burma from India. It also favoured Indianisation of army and extension of franchise.

The report did not find favour with Indian leaders. It failed to accept the demand of Indian public for introduction of responsible government at the Centre. Indirect election to central legislature and retention of communal representation Too was disliked by Indians.

A.B. Keith is of the view that Indian leadership should not have rejected this report out and out., “If it had been accepted, die British government could hardly have failed to work on it and responsible government in the provinces would have been achieved much earlier than it could be under any other later scheme.”

Nehru Report:

British government had all along been challenging Indian leadership that if they felt dissatisfied with what was being given to them, they should come out with a scheme which should be acceptable to all the sections of Indian public opinion. When India rejected Simon Commission recommendations, this challenge became still more meaningful.

In order to meet the challenge an All Parties Conference was convened in Bombay on 19th May, 1928 which appointed a sub-committee with Pandit Motilal Nehru as its chairman to frame a constitution for India. The Committee pleaded for immediate Dominion Status for India, felt dire necessity for provincial autonomy, favoured abolition of communal representation and proposed a federal polity for India.

It also recommended a bicameral system of legislature and also setting up of a Supreme Court, as the court of appeal in India. It also recommended that the Governor-General should act on the recommendations of the executive government.

The report was accepted by almost all the sections of Indian public opinion except by the Indian princes and extremist Muslims. It recommended same constitutional status for India in British empire as was enjoyed by the Dominions of Canada and Australia.

In the bicameral legislature Senate was to consist of two hundred members to be elected by provincial councils for a period of 7 years. The House of Representatives was to consist of 500 representatives to be elected on the basis of universal adult franchise. Its normal life was fixed at 5 years.

The Governor-General was to appoint Prime Minister while other Ministers were to be appointed by him on the recommendations of Prime Minister. Defence budget was to be subject to the vote of House of Representatives.

Governor-General was also to appoint a Public Service Commission. The judges of the Supreme Court were to be appointed by the Governor-General in Council and could be removed only on the recommendations of both the Houses of legislature.

It recommended that provincial councils should be constituted on the basis of adult franchise for a normal term of five years. The executive authority should vest in the Governor and his Council consisting of five Ministers.

It also recommended 19 Fundamental Rights to be embodied in the Constitution itself. It discarded communal or separate electorate but in Muslim majority provinces some seats were to be reserved for the Muslims.

The report had mixed reception but on the whole it proved to be a comprehensive document which contained aspirations of people of India. It provided basis for further discussions by national leaders during freedom struggle.

Jinnah’s Fourteen Point Programme:

In order to protect the Muslim interests Mr. Muhammad Ah Jinnah gave his own fourteen point programme. He also suggested federal system of government and autonomy for provinces. He, however, stressed that all legislatures should have adequate representation for minorities and in central legislature Muslim representation should not be less than 1/3 of its total strength.

There should be adequate share for the Muslims in the constitution of all services and there should also be adequate safeguards for projection and promotion of Muslim culture. In every cabinet should have at least 1/3 Muslim Ministers.

Both Nehru Report and Jinnah’s fourteen point programme provided sufficient input to British government. No less importance can be attached to Simon Commission, in so far input to the system is concerned.

In 1929, Gandhiji, along with some other leaders met the then Viceroy, but all were disillusioned and found that the British government was in no mood to give Dominion status to India. Accordingly it decided at its Lahore Session, held in that year, that complete independence of India would be the goal of national struggle in India.

Tri-colour was hoisted on the midnight of December 31, 1929 and January 26 was fixed as the day for the celebration of independence.

Disobedience Movement:

In order to check violence in national struggle, Gandhiji started civil disobedience movement in 1930-31 in which the people were persuaded not to pay taxes to the government. He also undertook his famous Dandi March on March 12, 1930.

As expected the government followed repressive measures to check the spread of the movement. National leaders of the Congress party and others were arrested and their number rose to about 60,000.

Some of the main demands at the time of Disobedience Movement included reduction of land revenue by 50%, abolition of sales tax, reduction in military expenses by at least 50%, reduction in the salaries of British officers, abolition of CID Department and protective tariff against foreign cloth.

Dandi March which started on 12th March, 1930 under Gandhiji from Sabarmati Ashram covered a distance of 241 miles and reached Dandi to break salt law. On April 5,1930 it reached Dandi where salt law was defied.

The programme included picketing of liquor shops, and leaving of government schools, colleges and services, etc. The response was very favourable. The Muslim attitude towards the movement w
as, however, not very co-operative.

In the words of Coupland Mr. Jinnah believed that, “We refuse to join Mr. Gandhi because his movement is not a movement for the complete independence of India but for making the seventy millions of Indian Musalmans dependent on Hindu Maha Sabha.” There was, however, complete confusion in the country and movement cheated serious law and order problem for the administrators and executive authorities.

In between George Solocombe, Dr. Jayakar and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru tried to bring about a solution to the problem, but failed. Ultimately the British government decided to convene a Round-Table Conference in 1930 to find a solution to Indian political problem. Indian National Congress decided to boycott the same.

Obviously such a conference which had no representative from a national organisation could achieve nothing.

While discussing the nature of the Conference Brails-ford once said, “In St. James Palace there did assemble princes and untouchables, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus and Christians, spokesman of landowners, trade unions and Chamber of Commerce, but Mother India was not there.” Though the Conference went on deliberating for quite some time, yet as expected nothing substantial came out of it.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Essay on Antonio Gramsci: Bio, Life and Political Ideas

After reading this article you will learn about the bio, life and political ideas of Antonio Gramsci.

Life and Time of Antonio Gramsci:

One of the most controversial yet original Marxist thinkers in the post-Lenin generation is Antonio Gramsci. He was born in 1891 in a village called Ales in Sardinia of Italy. His mother came from a well-to-do family.

His father was an ordinary government employee. He once became the victim of political conspiracy and lost his job.

The last and the very small source of livelihood were lost and almost starvation greeted Gramsci and other members of his family. A further misfortune fell upon him. Due to an accident in his childhood certain parts of his body were damaged and due to this he was hunchbacked and his proper physical development stopped.

Ignoring all these handicaps he began to study in ordinary educational institutions. Antonio Gramsci was a voracious reader and at the same time meritorious.

Ignoring all impediments he with indomitable energy studied socialist literature and other subjects. Antonio Gramsci completed his secondary standard and winning a scholarship got himself admitted in Turin University. Two factors sowed the seeds of socialist thought and philosophy in his young mind. His elder brother was a socialist and this encouraged him to be socialist.

While a student at Turin University he came in touch with the famous Italian Communist Palmiro Togliatti. Apart from this many of the professors of the University were socialist-minded. The First World War started in 1914 and during the war period Gramsci garnered enough knowl­edge about socialism.

Besides Togliatti several other persons influenced his thought and Benedetto Croce was one of them. Though influenced by Croce (1866-1952) he was not at all a Crocean. He was again influenced by another philosopher Antonio Labriola (1843-1904).

Initially Labriola was a Hegelian and after studying Marx’s writings extensively he came to be known as a Marxist.

His best known book is Essays on the Materialist Conception of History. He propagated Marxism in Italy and practically introduced the basic tenets of Marxism to Italians. His most famous concept is “philosophy of praxis” and Antonio Gramsci was attracted to it.

Practically Labriola’s philosophy of praxis was made by Antonio Gramsci on the central plank of his analysis about Marxism. Besides Labriola Croce was another Marxist whose thought created a good impact upon Gramsci. He was so much influenced by Croce that Gramsci called himself a Crocean.

Upon the thought system of Gramsci we find an influence “Council Commu­nism”. During 1915 to 1925, in several parts of Europe and particularly in Italy, Council Communism became very popular.

Leninist model of party was looked with askance by many. That is, many were not willing to treat Leninist party as a model to fight against the bourgeoisie. The workers of many European states formed councils.

The members of the “Council Communism felt that only through the formation of council the working class can intensify its struggle against bourgeois rule.”

McLellan says, “The Council Communists saw themselves as returning to Marx in their assertion that the proletariat was the first class in history to be able to achieve self-emancipation”. The propound­ed of Council Communism advocated that the workers’ best weapon is to form councils and make it an instrument of fight against the capitalist.

The council strongly advocates for mass strike and propagate the methods that will raise the level of workers’ consciousness and spontaneity. A good number of Marxists lent their support to it. Turin Council Movement was a very important incident that guided Gramsci’s political career. Gramsci was considerably influenced by the Bolshevik revolution and revolutionary activities that engulfed Russia.

In 1917-18 Gramsci was inspired by the activities of the Bolshevik Party and he thought that Bolshevik type of movement could be launched in Italy to save it from the unprecedented crisis created by World War I. Particularly the economic crisis was so severe that the common people were absolutely helpless.

The workers formed militant councils and organizations to fight against the authority. The workers had practically very little faith on the trade unions as well as their movement and for that reason they formed factory councils. The militant factory councils were first formed in the metallurgical industries of Turin.

Some people are of opinion that the formation of councils and to convert them into weapons of struggle was the product of Gramsci’s brain. He thought that traditional trade unions could not be relied upon, because the time had changed and new as well as effective weapons had to be found out.

Antonio Gramsci has clearly expressed his opinion unequivocally in the following words:

“The actual process of the proletarian revolution cannot be identified with the development and activity of revolutionary organisations of a voluntary and contrac­tual nature, such as political parties and trade unions. These organisations arise in the sphere of bourgeois democracy and political liberty”. Gramsci emphasized that the capitalists have changed their way of exploitation and at the same time the management of factory. So the workers must change their weapons of struggle against the bourgeois exploiters.

The conception of Factory Council constitutes a very important part of Gramscis political life or his participation in the political movement in the era of agitation against economic crisis. We have noted it earlier.

Let us see what Mc Lellan thinks of it. He says – “The Factory Councils were central to Gramsci’s conception at the time of revolutionary transformation of Italy. The main task of the Council was to change the attitude of the mass of workers from an attitude of dependence to one of leadership” Gramsci treated the “Factory Council as the new proletarian state in miniature”.

This is really a new aspect of Marxist thought and its application in practice. Because before Gramsci the renowned Marxists emphasized on the class struggle led by workers. Gramsci believed that the setting up of Factory Councils would substantially revolutionize the liberation movement of the workers.

In his assessment the formation of Factory Councils will play crucial role in building up a socialist society because these rejuvenate the workers. But his assessment was not up to the mark. That is, it was not possible for workers to look after the technical aspects of production.

Workers or their councils did not have the expertise of managing a factory whose core was technical knowledge. It is said that the Factory Councils to some extent resembled the Soviets of Russia. But Gramsci had limited knowledge about the functioning of Soviets.

As a result, Gramsci’s concept of Factory Councils and its special role in proletarian movement could not achieve success. Luxemburg and several other Marxists were not hopeful about the success of Factory Councils.

“The failure of the Turin Council movement in late 1920, his growing acquaintance with the realities of the Soviet Union and his concern of the rise of Fascism led Gramsci to modify his views”.

Political Ideas of Antonio Gramsci:

1. The Intellectuals:

One of the important contributions of Antonio Gramsci in Marxist thought is his conception about intellectuals and their role in bourgeois society. Analysing Gramscis viewpoint Mc Lellan (Marxism after Marx) says that Gramsci was primarily “The theoretician of the superstructure”. Gramsci said that intellectuals are very impor­tant in a capitalist society, they play
a vital role.

In his Prison Notebooks he says that the intellectuals are very active and they play vital and very often critical role in society. Their views are considered important and many educated people follow them. In his words – All men are intellectuals but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals. Each person, beyond his professional duty and function, is a philosopher, artist.

He carries with him his own view regarding politics, economics and many other subjects. He forms his own opinion about these and propagates them, tries to convince other persons about what he thinks.

Antonio Gramsci says that the intellectual contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it. In this way the intellectual brings about a new mode of thought.

The intellectuals have enough power to attract the attention of other people. In their thought and action they demand that they are progressive and this mesmerizes the common people. They are influenced and try to follow the intellectuals. In this way the intellectuals build up their attractive image in society. Gramsci has divided the intellectuals into two broad groups traditional and organic.

The traditional intellectuals regard themselves to be autonomous of social classes. The traditional intellectuals demand that they embody a historical continuity above and beyond socio-political change. By propagating this view the traditional intellectuals want to prove that they are neutral and they try to maintain their neutrality.

This builds up a glazy or attractive image and common people are easily attracted to them. Writers, philosophers and social scientists fall within this category. Organic intel­lectuals belong to a particular class and in all issues they support their own class.

The intellectuals play very important role in moulding and modifying the views of people. Particularly the views of those persons who are not definite about their own opinions.

In other words these intellectuals exercise important power over the people of society. Since an organic intellectual belongs to a class he always endeavours the people of his class.

The organic intellectuals articulate the collective views or opinions and they finally form a collective consciousness regarding political, social and economic affairs or issues. The aim of the organic intellectuals to build up a collective opinion about the economic and political aspects of society.

Kolakowski says that the proletariat wants the “organic intellectuals” because these intellectuals do not simply analyse the social, political and other aspects of society, but they also use “the language of culture to express the real experiences and feelings which the masses cannot express for themselves”.

That is, the real function of the organic intellectuals to provide the leadership and guide the proletarians in their struggle against the bourgeoisie. In the view of Kolakowski the term “organic intellectuals” is a very favourite term of Gramsci and he very frequently used it.

Antonio Gramsci did not use the term in any narrow and restricted sense, rather in a wider sense. He used the term in the sense that all the social classes have their own intellectuals and they in one way or other guide the members of their own classes.

These intellectuals explain the social and political issues to the members of the class which help to form opinion. This the intellectuals do in the background of class interest or from the standpoint of the class. This is a very important function.

“The fact that” observes Kolakowski, “the intellectuals appeared to form a separate metier (trade, profession or occupation) of their own, as opposed to being the mouthpieces of a particular class standpoint, inclined them towards idealistic philosophies which asserted the complete autonomy of intellectual activity”.

So we find that the intellectuals play a very important role in moulding the entire thought system of society. In practice they do not always support the particular standpoint of interests of people but in a clandestine way they try to bring the view in the lime­light.

The problem, however, is the working class has no organic intellectuals because this class has not been able to produce such intellectuals to support or propagate its own views in regard to economic and political matters.

“The task of the organic intellectuals was to draw out and make coherent the latent aspirations and potentialities already inherent in working class activity” Gramsci studied the various aspects of capitalist society and after that he formed the opinion about the role of the intellectuals.

Due to the important role of the intellectuals the capitalists have been able to strengthen the structure and other aspects of bourgeois society. Because of the vital role of the intellectuals the bourgeois society has been able to withstand all sorts of onslaught against it. This is one of the vital points of Gramsci.

2. Hegemony:

Antonio Gramsci has elaborated the role of intellectuals and this he has expressed through his much debated concept hegemony. The dictionary meaning of the term is; leadership or domination or dominance by state or group over others.

When Gramsci used the term he specifically meant that in bourgeois society the intellec­tuals dominate over the political and other spheres and justify their own views or ideology which they represent.

The intellectuals propagate the bright aspects or importance of particular ideology and in this way the ideology plays dominant role.

In his The Prison Notebooks Gramsci makes the following observation “a new homogeneous politics-economic historical bloc, without internal contradiction”. He further observes – “the dominant group is coordinated concretely with the general interests of the subordinate groups, and the life of the state is conceived of as a continuous process of formation and superseding of unstable equilibria between the interests of the fundamental and those of the subordinate groups equilibria in which the interests of the dominant group prevail”. This is, in short, the definition of hegemony.

Antonio Gramsci observed that the intellectuals of the historically progressive class exercise powers through the technique of domination over the individuals. These intellectuals (in various ways) influence the members of society to which they belong and in this act they use academic ideas and concept. They are against the application of force, but apply reason, ideas, views and method of persuasion.

Thus the purpose of the intellectuals is to exercise power of attraction mainly to influence the general public. Gramsci observes that there are several groups of intellectuals or many intellectuals and not all of them are interested in influencing others. Few or only a dominant group take initiative in influencing masses of men.

In this venture, it is generally found, generally one group of intellectuals plays the dominant role and other groups are subordinated to the powerful group. In this way the hegemony of one group is established.

The intellectuals of a dominant group control the intellectual activities of the society. There may exist small or less powerful groups of intellectuals but they are incapable of exercising power over others. This is what is called the theory of hegemony.

Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is not any concocted story or an imaginative one. He thoroughly studied the political and administrative systems of several mature capitalist countries. Jacobinism represented the French bourgeoisie. By exercising intellectual power the Jacobins were able to influence the peasants of France.

Again, the capitalists of USA have their own intellectuals and many of them are lavishly paid by the capitalists. These intellectuals act as the spokes-persons of the capitalists and they propagate the political and economic views of capitalism.

That is they present the
bright side of capitalism before the mass of men and in this way common people are influenced. Gramsci also studied the concept of hegemony in the background of America’s capitalist system.

He observed that in USA the intellec­tuals exercise their power over the people to bring the importance of capitalist system in the limelight. We have already stated that Antonio Gramsci was directly associated with the Turin Council Movement in which he found that the ruling class obtained the consent of subordinate groups and classes to accept the domination.

Characteristics of Hegemony:

Hegemony plays a very important role in the whole thought system of Gramsci but according to Kolakowski he has used the idea in senses more than one. Sometimes hegemony implies political power and the authority uses coercive means over the masses to ensure obligation. The hegemony or overall dominance comes out of the coercion. But this does not always happen.

The authority applies other methods to establish its overall supremacy over the society. Gramsci is of opinion that in a parliamentary system hegemony comes out of the combination of force and consent. That is, the political authority tries to receive obligation or approval through democratic means such as consent or formation of public opinion or large scale public discussion.

In such a situation the government uses various organs of public opinion. Force is rarely used. In all democratic systems this is normally found.

It has been found that the intellectuals and the groups or societies formed by them generally use cultural means and sociological ways. The intellectuals influence the common people by way of dissemination.

The important intellectuals spread academic or educational ideas and concepts, their importance or bright sides among the general public. In this way the powerful group of intellectuals culturally or academically dominates common people. This is also a type of hegemony.

Explaining the precondition of the emancipation of the working class Gramsci has asserted that only through the seizure of political power this can be attained. But this is not an easy task. By it the cultural hegemony is to be achieved.

In simple language, the cultural hegemony means the particular culture of the working class must dominate. In sociology it is called cultural socialisation. Kolakowski in this connection says – the working class could only conquer by first imparting its world- views and system of values to the other classes who might be its political allies – in this way it would become the intellectual leader of society, just what the bourgeoisie had done before seizing political control Gramsci has repeat­edly emphasized this essential precondition for the attainment of political power. Not only this, the bourgeoisie has applied the same technique for the sustenance of its control over society and power.

Another aspect of Gramsci’s hegemony is there is “material basis” of hegemony, and according to well-known interpreters of his doctrine this is reforms and compromises. The bourgeoisie is quite conscious that the strict adherence to its own ideology and views about economics, politics, culture etc. may cut a sorry figure. Compromises with the opposition may be required and this attitude is quite realistic.

Some of the views of other classes or groups are accommodated into the views and approaches of the bourgeoisie. It has been truly observed by a critic that the “hegemonic class in Gramsci’s definition is truly political because it goes beyond its immediate economic interests to represent the universal advancement of society”.

Antonio Gramsci understood quite well that any proliferation of interests and outlooks will ultimately lead to the numerous divisions of society. The capitalist class for that reason adopts a very realistic approach. The capitalists always adopt a middle path. It is the view of the capitalists to avoid way of severe conflict and intransigency.

Other Aspects of Gramsci’s Concept:

Gramsci’s theory of hegemony occupies a very important place in Marxist thought system; even some say that it is his “most important contribution to Marxist Theory”. This assessment is quite true. Before he was imprisoned and during his imprisonment he observed that hegemony of class or groups had important position. It helps to capture power, to hold or perpetuate power.

During the period of 1924-1926 Gramsci carefully thought the particular or crucial role of the bourgeoisie in the capitalist society and finally he arrived at a conclusion that the proletariat could capture political power through establishing its own hegemony. For that purpose it must ensure its own social basis.

An interesting aspect of Gramsci’s theory is he suggested adopting caution. He thoroughly studied history, particularly Machiavelli and many others. He felt that the application of force was not enough. That is, a group or class may be superior in respect of military force. But that cannot enable it to be the owner of authority or power.

The class or organisation must be able to establish its supremacy in the fields of intellect, morality and mass support. The class or group must provide intellectual supremacy.

Generally the dominant class adopts one or the other method and makes compromises. Adamancy is generally avoided. Through the method of consent and compromises the most powerful class builds up its own domination. What Marx and Engels called the ruling class Gramsci called the hegemonic class.

The concept of hegemony has been called by many as “fabric of hegemony”. It is woven by the intellectuals who have great network of wide organisation. So we can say that mere attainment of hegemony is not sufficient for capturing political power.

Antonio Gramsci also dealt with sectarianism while analysing hegemony. He said that the working class, for the purpose of attaining hegemony, must take an approach of an entire society. That is the working class must give priority to the interests of whole society, not the interests of any particular section.

The working class must create a confidence in the minds of the people of all sections that it is capable of achieving fulfillment of the desires of all groups and classes. Without this the hegemony will never be a reality.

The intellectuals belonging to the working class have a very important role to play, but above all they must be broad-minded. He has said that in the case of hegemony a particular class or a group of intellectuals may play a vital role, but this must not exclude the prospective role to be played by others.

What Antonio Gramsci emphasizes is that a particular group may be in leadership, but that is not all. Though Gramsci did not rule out the role or importance of force, he was against its random use.

A critic has viewed Gramsci’s theory of hegemony from a realistic point of view. We quote few lines: “A fully extended hegemony must rest on active consent, on a collective will in which various groups in society unite”.

It is true that without hegemony the working class will never be able to achieve supremacy. But hegemony is not something which will fall from the sky.

The working class must make protracted efforts. Apart from this, certain ingredients are essential. The electronic and print media must be used for the purpose of propagating the views of the working class. But the fact is that in a bourgeois society these two powerful agents of public opinion are under the full control of the ruling class.

In the field of hegemony what would be the exact role of the party? Gramsci was quite aware of the importance of a party. Although he did not regard party as the vanguard of the proletarians, party can effectively shoulder the burden of propa­gating the views or ideology. But he differed from Lenin on several aspects regarding the role of the party.

Antonio Gramsci said that the primary responsibilit
y of a party would be to propagate the ideology of the working class.

Commenting on the importance of party viewed by Gramsci Mc Lellan makes the following observation: “Gramsci had broader view of the party than Lenin, since he conceived of it as deeply committed to an ideological and cultural struggle as well as the seizure of the state power he advocated a party that was an educational institution offering a counter-culture whose aim was to gain ascendancy in most aspects of civil society before the attempt was made on state power”. Mere dissemination of the drawbacks of bourgeois society is not enough.

The interpreters of Gramsci’s philosophy think so. During his Turin Council Movement he observed that the party must give them proper leadership, but the workers or agitators must rise to the occasion spontaneously and consciously.

Achievement of success must not be treated as a gift; it is a hard-earned object. Kolakowski has drawn our attention to an important drawback of Gramsci’s concept.

He says that without destroying the bourgeois culture how is it possible to establish proletarian culture. Even if the proletarians are able to capture power before establishing the hegemony of its culture will it is possible for the working class to destroy the bourgeois culture? In this vital matter Gramsci’s analysis fails to provide satisfactory reply.

3. Civil Society, State and Revolution:

Another notable contribution of Gramsci to the development of Marxist thought is his conception about civil society. Marx and Engels in their The German Ideology have sporadically analyses it. But their analysis is incomplete in the sense that they did not analyse it from different standpoints.

In the thirties of the last century Gramsci focused his attention on the importance as well as its role in a bourgeois society and after that a number of scholars have shown interest in Gramsci’s view.

A recent scholar (Joseph Famia Civil Society and Marxist Tradition Published in Civil Society edited by Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani Cambridge University Press 2002) says: “Economic reductionism is not a charge that could be levelled against Antonio Gramsci who alone of Marx’s eminent disciples—tried to develop the concept of civil society”.

In the first few years of the 1930s Gramsci observed that in the bourgeois system the political organisation which is popularly known as the state plays important role in the whole gamut of political system.

The capitalism and its supporters do not always play rational role. Its chief objective is not to make people moral or ensure general material progress of society. Profit-making being its soul objective it aims at removing the thorns that exist on its way of attaining objective.

How the bourgeoisie performs its role created high interest in the mind of physically-handicapped but mentally alert Gramsci.

After comprehensive analysis of various aspects of bourgeois society, he raised the issue of the survival of the capitalist society. To put it in other words, Marx thoroughly scanned the capitalist’s society and drew the conclusion that because of its inherent contradictions the capitalist would collapse.

Antonio Gramsci observed that capitalism did not follow the prediction of Marx. Gramsci was a true Marxist and because of that he did not jump upon the conclusion that Marx was wrong.

Rather, he started on investigation and formed certain conclusions on the basis of his investigation. One such conclusion is his theory of hegemony which has been discussed. The other is Civil Society.

The answer to Gramsci’s question ‘why did capitalism survive’ lay in the objective condition that existed in a capitalist society. In his Prison Notebooks he writes one that can be called “Civil Society” that is the ensemble of organisms commonly called ‘private’ and that of ‘political society’ or the state.

These two levels correspond, on the one hand, to the function of ‘hegemony’ which the dominant group exercises throughout society and, on the other hand, to that of direct domination or command exercised through the ‘state’ and juridical government.

According to Gramsci the civil society includes various religious and non-religious organizations such as churches, political parties, trade unions, aca­demic institutions, press, publishing houses etc.

All these institutions and organi­sations disseminate the ideology and views of the dominant (economically and politically) class. The dissemination is carried out in such a way that the subordinate or weaker classes do not get the opportunity to propagate their views among the masses of men.

The process of dissemination is carried out intensively and uninterruptedly and practically the powerful or dominant class succeeds in estab­lishing its hegemonic status. In this way the dominant class establishes its all-round superior position. The dominant class in this connection performs another function.

Antonio Gramsci uses the term civil society in different ways. Sometimes he says that the civil society is outside the state, that is, it is not a part of state. But in many places he says that the state comprises both political society and civil society. This means that the civil society is part of the state.

Explaining Gramsci’s stand on the concept of civil society Mc Lellan says “Civil society denoted for Gramsci all the organisations and technical means which diffuse the ideological justification of the ruling class in all domains of culture.”

This implies that civil society generally performs cultural functions and in this way establishes its hegemony. But the activities of the civil society are not confined within the cultural sphere; they are spread over other spheres. The organs of the civil society are like the trench systems of modern warfare.

In war the army can destroy only the outer superstructure of the enemy state. It cannot destroy the entire defensive system. In the political system the same thing happens.

There is a political organisation which we call state and there is a social organisation what is generally called the civil society. In all capitalist structures or systems there exists a second line of defence.

In a capitalist society the civil society is always active and provides all sorts of protection to the state. In all capitalist states numerous changes occur. But due to the active role of the civil society these changes cannot destabilize the capitalist structure. Gramsci treats the civil society as the most effective organisation which provides protection to the state.

If there were no civil society the capitalist state would have collapsed. Modem critics are of opinion that Gramsci’s concept of civil society is full of contradictions and this is due to the fact that the central idea of the concept is derived from Hegel and this he applied for analysing Marx’s ideas.

4. State:

Though Gramsci gave special emphasis to civil society and its hegemonic status in the whole gamut of politics he was well aware of the importance of political society or organisation or state.

In 1931 Gramsci wrote:

“This study (Notebooks) also leads to certain determinations of the concept of State which is usually understood as political society” He treated the state as an embodiment of coercive power used against the masses to ensure their unconditional obligation towards the political authority. Even, he did not treat the state as equilibrium between different forces that are quite active. But according to Gramsci there is a close relationship between state and civil society and Antonio Gramsci observed that. But this did not happen everywhere.

He cited the East of Russia and noted this in his Notebooks. In his opinion the State in Russia was all powerful and civil society was primordial or, to some extent, p
rimitive. He also called the Russian state gelatinous Gramsci has exposed the exact nature of the Russian state or the states of other Western countries in the following words.

“The state was only an outer ditch behind which there stood a powerful system of fortress and earthworks”. We thus find that in the developed capitalist societies there existed two separate areas for state and civil society and, because of this difference; the strategies for revolution must be different.

Antonio Gramsci thought that in primitive societies the state was always on the frontline in the social system. There was civil society, but its existence was not important at all.

In this situation all sorts of revolutionary activities must be focused towards the state. That is, the state should be an object of attack. But where the civil society plays an important role, the purpose of the revolution should be to attack the civil society.

According to Gramsci, the war against the state and the war against the civil society are quite different. Before starting revolution the revolutionaries must take care of it. If they failed to study the different positions or importance of state and civil society their action will be in jeopardy. This means that Gramsci was against any simplistic strategy or procedure in war against capitalism.

He also warned that the Leninist method of war against capitalism was not suitable for every situation. In other words, the revolutionaries must distinguish between the crucial position of state and civil society and after that decide the course of action or nature of strategy.

In the thirties of the last century the world witnessed the Great Depression in the mature capitalist countries and the communists were jubilant at it. They prophesied that capitalism would collapse and naturally there was no need of permanent revolution.

Antonio Gramsci shared this view, that is, he did not subscribe to Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. Gramsci not only opposed permanent revolution, he at the same time supported the Stalinist stand regarding socialism in one country.

Antonio Gramsci said that if too much importance is given to the idea of permanent revolution then there would appear inertia or disinterestedness on the part of revolutionaries of some countries.

Naturally it would be better to concentrate on the revolution of a particular country. Though Gramsci opposed Trotsky’s idea of permanent revolution he agreed with his views on Fascism. Both viewed fascism as a petty-bourgeois movement. Fascism consists of a mass organisation of the petty- bourgeoisie.

Upload and Share Your Article: