ALIENATION

Alienation is one of those terms that started off as a philosophical concept and yet has now
become almost a part of everyday speech. In this process new meanings have been ascribed to it
and old meanings have been reinterpreted and broadened. so that, at times, it is hard to tell
exactly what it does mean - other than denoting a general feeling of being dissatisfied in some
way. Although at times it appears to be part of the common currency of everyday speech, it is
also apparent that it has a close connection with various schools of thought that identify
themselves with Marx where it has consequently taken on a distinctly political tone.
Marx put forward his theory of alienation at a time when he was still strongly influenced by
Ludwig Feuerbach's book The Essence of Christianity, 1841, in which Feuerbach, an ex-
student of Hegel, had gone beyond Hegel in his critical analysis of religion. Feuerbach argued
that the notion of god is a product of the way people see themselves. He argued that people
ascribe to god just those qualities that they see as being essentially human qualities. According
to Feuerbach, " ... in religion man necessarily places his nature out of himself ... God is his
alter ego, his other lost half'. For Feuerbach, people alienate their essential being by attributing
their human qualities to a god who is then worshipped on account of these qualities. In
worshipping god, therefore, people are unconsciously worshipping themselves. Thus Feuerbach
argues that religion is a form of alienation which prevents people from attaining realisation of
their own species-being. Feuerbach's thinking has been described as humanist in that his theory
of alienation is based on a theory of human nature as species-being, as innate to the human
species. Marx gave his fullest treatment of alienation in The Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts, 1844.

The concept of 'Alienation' is one of the central concepts of Marxism and is widely used by both
Marxists and non-Marxists. The concept of 'alienation' conveys the sense of a life determined
by external 'alien' forces, and a consequent lack of control or authenticity and oneness with
oneself. Karl Marx, who saw labour itself as alienating, developed the concept of 'alienation'.
Alienation is a term Marx uses to describe and evaluate the modem economy in which goods are
produced for the market. He employs three German words generally rendered into English as
‗alienation‘ (Entfremdung), 'estrangement' (Entausserung) and the adjectives ‗alien‘or
‗foreign‘ (fremd) to explain his conceptions. There does not seem to be any consistent
distinction between ‗alienation‘ and ‗estrangement‘. The concept of alienation is most
thoroughly rehearsed in Marx's early Economic and Philosophical Manuscript (EPM) of 1844.
In the EPM, Marx describes a condition of man's alienation from nature, from others, and from
the products of his labour. Marx uses alienation to characterize an economic system
presupposing greed, exchange, competition and private ownership of productive resources. In
that system, he argues, money is used to value goods and to devalue people, because workers
themselves become commodities bought and sold as Labour. The devaluation of the human
world, Marx writes, 'grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things’.
Hence, in Marx's sense, an action through which or a state in which a person, a group, an
institution or a society becomes or remains 'alien' to the results or products of its own activity
and to the activity itself, and! or to the nature in which it leaves and to other human beings, and
finally to itself, that is, to its own historically created human possibilities is called alienation.
However, Marx lays a focus on man's alienation from himself because of the products of his
own labour. Under capitalism, according to Marx, a man is alienated by the exploitation of the
worker, enforcing an identification of the worker with the commodity value of the products of
his labour. Ultimately, this is seen to produce a profound alienation of man from himself. Hence,
according to Marx, "The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his
labour becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently,
as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power of its own confronting him".
Karl Marx has detailed four distinct aspects of alienation. They are:
i. The objects produced by labourers come to oppose them as something
alien, things independent of and opposed to their producers. Because
workers have no control over products, which belong to employers or
capitalists, and because workers have no control over productive
resources, which also belong to these property owners, an alien world of
objects confronts modem labourers as the autonomous power of capital.
ii. Workers are alienated from the very activity of work, because labour has
become a commodity sold to owners of productive resources and carried
out under their control. It is done only under compulsion and has no
intrinsic worth for the workers themselves. With the introduction of
machine- labour, Marx argues, work more and more mortifies the flesh of
labourers and ruins their minds. It becomes an activity of self-
estrangement.
iii. Work in the modem economy also estranges people from productive
labour itself, the vital activity of the human species. Human beings, unlike
animals, do not merge directly with their activities. Their activities are
objects of will and consciousness and for that reason the character of
labour changes with each mode of production as economic progress takes
place. In principle human beings are 'capable of producing according to
the standards of every species and of applying to each object its inherent
standard ... the laws of beauty'. In practice, estranged labour turns this
conscious life activity into a mere means for existence. It alienates people
from their own bodies, from nature and from the essential human capacity
for free production beyond mere physical need.
iv. As a consequence of being estranged from products, from work and from
the vital activity of the species, people are also estranged from other
people, in particular workers from capitalists. The relation of workers to
their own labour as a mere commodity that must be sold creates 'the
relation of the capitalist- to that labour .'

Towards the end of Capital, Volume 1, of 1867, Marx employs the concept of alienation
explicitly. At an advanced, summary stage of the analysis in Capital, volume 1, he describes and
evaluates the capitalist system as an embodiment of alienation in all four aspects. The four
aspects of alienation also appear in earlier sections of Capital, Volume 1, but they are implicit in
the more specific vocabulary by which Marx characterises capitalism.

1. The alienation of the worker from the products of labour, which confront me labourer as a
powerful, alien, objective world, appears transformed as the theory of the fetishism of
commodities.
2. Estrangement of the labourer from the labour process
3. The alienation of people from labour, their vital activity as a species
 4. The estrangement of people from each other in society is reflected in the inevitably
opposed class interests.

The concept of alienation also describes, in Marx's view, the most basic feature of a system of
private property. Marx's analysis of alienation is firmly embedded in recognition of the material
conditions of the wage-worker under early capitalism. This separates Marx most emphatically
from all those writers on alienation from Hegel to the existentialists who see alienation as a
necessary characteristic that haunts people through all time, irrespective of their material
conditions. Instead of seeing alienation as part of the human condition, Marx argues that it is the
result of a specific set of social relations where human productive activity is reduced to wage-
labour and where the worker has no control over the means of production or productive activity.
In short, for Marx, the worker's alienation is the direct result of capitalist relations of production.
Hence, for Marx, there is a solution. If alienation is caused by capitalist relations, then the
removal of those relations will remove the alienation itself. Marx's solution, then, was not one of
metaphysics, but the revolutionary transformation of social relations. Only an alternative
economic system, namely the communism, Marx recommends, would abolish alienation. Indeed
communism for Marx is non-alienated industrial society.

CAPITALIST STATE
Karl Marx understood capitalism as a historically specific mode of production (the way in
which the productive property is owned and controlled, combined with the corresponding social
relations between individuals based on their connection with the process of production) in
which capital has become the dominant means of production (Burnham). The capitalist stage
of development or "bourgeois society," for Marx, represented the most advanced form of social
organization to date.

According to Marx, human civilization has manifested itself in a series of organizational

structures, each determined by its primary mode of production, particularly the division of labor
that dominates in each stage. Marxism is essentially an economic interpretation of history based
primarily on the works of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. Marx was a revolutionary who
focused his efforts on understanding capitalism to overthrow it. In Marxist interpretation,
Capitalist state is just another stage of socio-economic development. It is the last class society.
The essence of capitalism is exploitation of workers (proletariat) by capitalists (bourgeoisie) with
resulting class struggle. The 'relations of production' are characterized by private ownership and
the prevalence of 'commodity production' (market). The ‗forces of production' are characterized
by the fast growth of productivity due to the 'division of labor' (specialization) and
mechanization. The industrial revolution resulted in mass production with intricate inter-industry
relations. In the capitalist market economy goods are not produced by an individual producer for
a small number of local consumers as in the past, but by the huge collectives of workers -
sometimes spread over the whole country or even over many countries - for thousands or
millions of consumers. The 'forces of production' acquired the 'social character' but the 'relations
of production' are still based on private ownership and 'anarchy' of the market. This is the main
contradiction of capitalism which - according to Marxist analysis - must lead to revolution,
abolition of private property and capitalist relations of production.
Tom Bottomore (1973) in His Dictionary of Marxist Thought sets down some of the main
features of capitalism. As a mode of production, capitalist state is characterised by the following
features.

1) Production for sale rather than for self-use

By this we mean a shift from a subsistence economy. In most precapitalist economies,
production is undertaken for direct consumption. For instance, in agricultural economies, farmers
grow crops for their own use, only a small surplus is available for sale. This is because
technology is not so advanced and domestic or family labour is used for farming. Such is not the
case in a capitalist economy. Here, a large number of workers gather together in a factory. With
the help of machines and through division of labour, goods are produced on a mass scale. They
are produced for sale in the market. For instance in a factory producing soap, the output is not for
the self-use of the producers. It is for sale in the market.

2) The existence of a market where labour-power is bought and sold

According to Marx, workers are regarded only in terms of their labour power. The capitalist or
owner hires their labour-power by paying them wages. Workers can sell their labour power or
withhold it because they are legally free. Unlike in the earlier stages of human history, workers
are not forced to work like slaves or serfs. Sheer economic need forces them to work. They must
either work or starve. So, although they are legally free to enter or not enter into contracts with
the capitalist, they are not free from hunger, which forces them to sell their labour.

3) Exchange takes place through money

As we have seen in point (1) production is undertaken for sale, and sale is transacted through the
use of money. Money is the social bond that ties together the various elements in the capitalist
system. Hence the role of banks and financial institutions becomes important in the system.

4) The capitalist controls the production process

Not only does the capitalist control the hiring and firing of workers, but also decides how
production is to be carried out. He decides what is to be produced, the composition of raw
materials and machines, and the manner in which the output is to be marketed.

5) The capitalist controls financial decisions

This is related to the earlier point. Decisions regarding pricing of the product, wages of the
workers, the amount of financial investment and so on are taken by the capitalist.

6) Competition
Since the whole idea of capitalism is production for sale, there is bound to be competition
between capitalists. Whose products will sell the most in the market? Whose profits will be the
maximum? This leads to a situation in which each tries to outdo the other. The consequences
could be innovation or the use of the latest technology. Competition could also result in the
formation of ‗monopolies‘ or ‗cartels‘, where a single producer or group of producers try to
dominate the market by pushing or forcing out competitors. This leads to further concentration
and centralisation of capital in a few hands.
Capitalist state thus is a system, which according to Marx symbolises the most acute form of
exploitation, inequality and polarisation of classes. By this is meant that the social distance
between the owners of the means of production (i.e., the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the
proletariat) becomes greater and greater. The concept of class conflict is very important in
Marx‘s understanding of capitalism.

RAMMOHUN’S EFFORTS TO REFORM HINDU RELIGION

A review and revaluation of religion was Roy's primary concern. He was of the opinion that rationality and
modernity needed to be introduced in the field of religion and that "irrational religion" was at the root of many
social evils. The sociopolitical progress of this country, according to him, depended mainly on the 'successful
revolution in the religious thought and behaviour. He was interested not only in reforming the Hindu religion, but
also tried to remove the discrepancies among the various religions of the world. He undertook a serious study of
comparative religions and realised in due course that true Hinduism, true Islam and true Christianity are not
fundamentally different from each other. He hoped that the universal religion for mankind could be established by
combining the best elements of all religions. This concept of universal religion meant not merely religious tolerance,
but also transcending all the sectarian barriers of separate religion. Roy, thus attempted a spiritual synthesis,
stressing the unity of all religious experience. He became a confirmed monotheist. In 1828 he established the
Brahmo Samaj. The Samaj acted as a forum for religious and philosophical contemplation and discussion. Roy's
criticism of religious antagonised the priestly classes of all organised religions. Time has, however, proved beyond
doubt the relevance or Roy's thoughts and deeds.

Roy devoted all his energies to fighting sectarianism and other medieval tendencies prevailing in the Hindu
society, such as polytheism, idolatory and superstitions. He was a firm believer of the Advaita philosophy
which left no scope for such tendencies. Roy was quite sure that unless the Hindu society underwent a
religious and social transformation, it would not become fit for political progress. According to him, the then
prevailing religious system of the Hindus was ill-suited for the promotion of their political interests. The
multitude of religious rites and ceremonies and the unnatural distinctions of caste and laws of purification, Roy
argued, had deprived the Hindus of any kind of common political feeling. Hindus must accept some changes in
their religion at least for the sake of their political advantage and social comfort. Reinterpretation of Hinduism,
to Roy, was thus the starting point for the programme of socio-political reform. Roy sought to combine the
deep experiences of spiritual life with the basic principle of social democracy. He denounced all superstitions
and the evil practices based on them because he was convinced that these longstanding customary practices
really did not form the core of their religious faith. They, in fact, had no place or support in the religious texts
of the Hindus. Roy wanted to draw the attention of his countrymen to the ancient purity of their religion. To
him, this purity was well reflected in the Vedas and the Upanishads.

In order to prove that blind faith and superstitious beliefs and practices had no basis in the pure Hindu religion,
Roy undertook the difficult task of translating the Upanishads into English and Bengali. He gave elaborate
notes and comments with these translations and distributed them free of cost amongst the people. At the age of
16, Roy wrote a book challenging the validity of the practice of idol-worship, which according to him was the
root cause of many other social evils. It led to the multiplication of deities and also a multitude of modes of
worship. This, in turn, had resulted in dividing the society into innumerable castes and groups, each
worshiping an idol different from others. The process of division and subdivision was unending. Roy
considered idolatory to be opposed to reason and common sense. Besides, it had no sanction in the ancient
religious texts. Roy preached monotheism and a collective prayer from the platform of the Brahmo Samaj. Roy
fought against the superstitions which had resulted in evolving many inhuman and cruel customs and traditions
in Hindu society. He tried. to convince the people that the superstitions had nothing to do with the teachings of
original Hinduism. Roy not only preached but also practised what he preached. Travelling across the ocean
was considered to be a sin by the orthodox Hindus. Roy was the first Hindu to break this superstition. He
himself undertook overseas travel. This courage of conviction on his part made Roy's efforts more effective.
 CENTRE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS

Introduction
The Administrative Relations between the union and the States have been clearly delimited in
Part XI, Chapter II of the Constitution. Like the Centre-State Legislative Relations, in the sphere
of the administrative relations also the Constitution shows a distinct favour for the Union. It
provides for a system of dual administration: each state has its own government and
administration which exercises administrative powers over the State subjects. The Union
government has exclusive administrative jurisdiction over the subjects of the Union List and the
Residuary Subjects. The provisions of the administrative relations reflect the superiority of the
Union in the sphere of the administrative relations.

The Provisions
Some important provisions under Part XI Chapter II pertaining to the Centre-State
Administrative Relations are:
 Governors Appointed by the President: Each state has a governor who acts as the head of
the State. The President has the power to appoint, transfer, or remove the governor from
office. This reflects a superiority of the Union over the State.
 States’ Obligations Towards the Union: According to Article 256, the executive power
of every state is to be exercised in compliance with the laws made by the Union
Parliament. It also enjoins that the executive power of the Union extends to giving such
directions to the State as may appear to the Government of India necessary for that
purpose from time to time. It obviously implies the overarching powers of the Union
Parliament vis-a –vis the States. Article 257 lays down that the executive power of every
state shall be exercised in such a manner as shall not impede or prejudice the executive
powers of the Union. It may imply that in some cases the Union exercises covert control
over the states.
 Protection of Railways: The executive powers of the Union also extends to the giving of
directions to a State as to the measures to be take for the protection of the railway
property within te State.
 Union can settle Disputes relating to Inter-State Rivers or River Valleys: The Union
Parliament can by law provide for the adjunction of any dispute over the use, distribution
or control of the waters of any inter-state river or river valley.
 Protection of Central Property in a State: it is the responsibility of each State
Government to protect central properties in its territory. The Union can deploy
paramilitary forces like CRPF in any State.
 Provision for Common All India Service: The officers of the IAS and IPS are recruited
by UPSC but assigned to each State. They hold all higher administrative posts in the State
administration. Their conduct is ultimately controlled by the Union.
 Union’s Power to create or abolish an All India Service: The Constitution gives to the
Rajya Sabha the power to create a new All India Service or to abolish an existing All
India Service (Art.312). The Rajya Sabha can do this by passing a resolution supported
by 2/3rd majority of the members present and voting.
 Coordination Powers of the Union: For securing coordination among States, the
President can establish an inter-State Council under Article 263. ―If at any time, it
 appears to the President of India that the public interest would be served by the
establishment of an inter-State Council… it shall be lawful for the President by order
to establish such a council and to define the nature of the duties to be performed by it
and its organization and procedure‖.
 Provision for Presidential Rule in any State: Under Article 356, the President either of
his own or on the recommendation of the Governor of a State, can declare constitutional
emergency in the State in case of failure of constitutional machinery. In such a case the
State executive ceases to hold power. The State comes under President‘s rule and the
Governor of the State starts acting as the real executive. The State administration comes
under the Centre.
 Duty of the Union to protect States: It is a constitutional duty of the Union to protect
every State against aggression and internal disturbances. It has the responsibility to
ensure that the government of every State be carried out in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.
 State Administration and National Emergency: When the President proclaims a national
emergency under Article 352; the executive power of the Union gets extended to the
States. It can give directions to any State as to the manner in which the executive power
is to be exercised.
 Failure of a State to give effect to the Union’s directions can lead to an imposition of
constitutional emergency in that State: The Constitution lays down that where any State
fails to comply with, or to give effect to any direction given in the exercise of the
executive power of the Union, it shall be lawful for the President to hold that a situation
has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried out in accordance with
the provisions of this Constitution (Art.365). The provision can be used by the Union
against any non-cooperating State.
 The Power to Appoint Inquiry Commissions: The provision that the Union government
can appoint Inquiry commissions against te Chief Minister of a State for investigating
alleged acts of commission. This provision can also enable the Union Government to
exercise an overall administrative control over the state administration.

Conclusion
The discussion made above reveals the fact that that the Constitution of India assigns a superior
role to the Union in the sphere of administrative relations between the Union and the States. This
reflects the Unitarian spirit of the Constitution of the Indian Union. Another point tat needs a
mention here is the fact tat the Union State administrative Relations in India is also influenced by
the absence of economic self-sufficiency of the States. They woo the centre for financial
assistance for their economic development; and in this process, they compromise their
administrative autonomy to settle for a sort of Cooperative federalism.

CASTE IN INDIAN POLITICS

The binary relationship between caste and politics is trotted out for re-examination whenever
there‘s a major election. That caste affiliation is a fundamental determinant of political
calculation and voting patterns is a commonplace of academic and street discourse. Even when
the relationship is complex, and not easily reducible to a limited set of factors, it acts as a matrix
which encloses the electoral field. This is usually denied or deplored by the urban upper class
which occupies the apex of the social structure and whose concerns and ideology are reflected in
the mainstream media. But for the overwhelming majority of the Indian bourgeoisie, attached in
some way or the other to the countryside, caste considerations usually govern political affiliation
either directly or indirectly.

The predominant feature of the social structure in India is the caste system. All social, economic
and political relationships for the individual are determined by the caste. M. N. Srinivas opines,
―Caste is so tacitly and so completely accepted by all, including those most vocal in condemning
it, that it is everywhere the unit of social action.‖ The nationalist elite that took power in 1947
wrote a constitution that contained the democratic institutions – parliament and legislatures,
elections, universal suffrage, freedom of assembly, freedom for press, legal rights, all based on
the principle of equal political rights. Equality was to be achieved in part through democratic
institutions and procedures, particularly universal suffrage, equality before law, legislation,
banning discrimination, and through the establishment of a system of reservations that would
guarantee representation to members of scheduled castes and tribes. Equality was also to be
achieved through socialist planning. Equality of opportunity, they said, would come through
universal and compulsory elementary education and an expanded system of higher education.

The nationalist elite did not promise a classless society, but they did offer the promise of a
casteless society in which social status would not be based upon hereditary social rankings and
individuals would not be denied opportunities because of their birth. The revolutionary
transformation did not of course take place. Caste as an ideology may be moribund, but as a
lived-in social reality it is very much alive. Castes remain endogamous. Lower castes, especially
members of scheduled castes, remain badly treated by those of higher castes. Acts of brutality
and terror continue to be a part of the atrocities perpetuated on the dalits and other lower classes,
the more so the more they become conscious of their rights and begin to assert themselves.
Entire communities are found to be in deep turmoil, facing constant humiliation and growing
erosion of their identity and sense of being part of civil society, the nation and the state.

Ever so often we hear ghastly tales of these atrocities taking place in one or another part of the
country. The police, the political parties, the bureaucrats in charge are always found to arrive late
on the scene of rampage. Then follow the journalists and the photographers, the lawyers and the
human rights activities. The Ministers and the Chief Ministers arrive still later and, so that the
political mileage is not lost, the Prime Minister follows suit in a quick helicopter ride. A
commission of inquiry is soon announced, compensation of the families of the dead is widely
broadcast and in the meanwhile we are told that it was all the work of some ‗anti-social‘
elements and opposition parties and groups.

Over time, after showing a lot of patience and forbearance, the people are losing faith and are
coming to the conclusion that they might have to fend for themselves. For long consciousness of
caste was the preserve of the Brahmanical upper castes. Today something quite different is
happening; the very sufferers from the system (including the caste system) are invoking caste
identity and claims. But the movement for change according to Myron Weiner is not a struggle
to end caste, ―It is to use as an instrument for social change. Caste is not disappearing, nor is
―castesim‖ – the political use of caste – for what is emerging in India is a social and political
system which institutionalizes and transforms but does not abolish caste.‖ The point is that castes
does resurface as a result of the democratic process but in its resurfacing it gets transformed.
Indeed, one can argue that ‗Casteism in politics‘ is an agenda for the very transformation of the
caste system.

―Castesim in politics is no more and no less than politicization of caste‘ which, in turn, leads to
a transformation of the caste system. This happened both structurally and ideologically. Within
the social structure of caste, a whole variety of new alignments took place which undermined the
rigidity of the system – both the splitting and federating of caste along secular political lines,
enabling them to bargain with political parties and adopt organizational forms in keeping with
the demands of the latter. Ideologically, there took place a basic shift from hierarchy to plurality,
from ordained status to negotiated positions of power, from the ritual definitions of roles and
positions to civic and political definitions of the same.‖ Caste as a fundamental aspect of the
social structure of India and the economic foundation, upon which it is based, is a major
parametric variable of the Indian political system. Politics is a competitive enterprise, its purpose
is the acquisition of power for the realisation of certain goods and its process is one of
identifying and manipulating existing and emerging allegiances in order to mobilise and
consolidate positions. Where the caste structure provides one of the most important
organisational clusters in which the population is found to live, politics must strike to organise
through such a structure. By drawing the caste system into its web organisation politics find
material for its articulation and moulds it into its own design. In making politics their sphere of
activity, caste and kin group, on the other hand, get a chance to assert their identity and to strive
for positions. Politicians mobilize caste groupings and identities in order to organise their power.

Caste provides an extensive basis for organisation of democratic politics. In a society such as
Indian caste identity and solidarities become the primary channels through which electoral and
political support is mobilised within the political system. According to Rajni Kothari, ―It is not
politics that gets caste-ridden, it is caste that gets politicized.‖ The people are asked to vote for
their caste candidate by the politicians to achieve their ends. Political parties also choose such
candidates for election from the caste having significant voice in the constituency. The political
behaviour of the people of the members of different political parties and of the members of the
Government is caste-oriented or is influenced by the caste considerations. Their attitudes are
caste based and their values are the values of the caste affects political behaviour in different
ways:
(i) People of a caste vote en bloc for a candidate of the same or different caste, either in
pursuance of the decision of the caste panchayat or of a meeting of caste members or even
without a formal decision.
(ii) Even when they do not vote en block, they prefer a candidate of their own caste to other
candidates irrespective of the merits or demerits of the candidates.
(iii) The selection of the candidates for a constituency is based on whether he will be able to get
the support of a particular caste or castes.

All political parties are aware of the need to build electoral support by appealing to particular
castes, tribes and religious communities. In the early post independence years congress drew its
electoral support from Muslims, scheduled castes and tribes and from the higher castes. This
electoral coalition provided Congress with a majority of seats in parliament and in most of the
state assemblies. The first major break in the lock that Congress had upon Muslims and the
Scheduled Castes come during the emergency when Mrs. Gandhi and her son Sanjay eliminated
slums in the larger urban settlements. This adversely affected these two communities. In fact
since 1967, a tug of war has been going on in Indian Politics: should the national parties govern
the country or the regional satrap should forge linkages to run the affairs of the country. The
trajectory emerging is that all the parties ruling the centre have to accommodate parties
representing different regional constituencies in a coalition arrangement.

The other phase of political development began at the national level with the rise of BJP since
1984. The party tried cultivating majority vote bank by espousing the cause of the Hindu
majority in the country. It attacked the Congress of indulging in vote-bank politics by pampering
minorities and cultivated its own constituency on the anti-Muslim platform. Since neither the
BJP nor Congress have been able to win a majority of parliamentary seats, the power of the
smaller regional parties has increased in the centre, particularly since several of them also control
state governments. The BJP and SP in UP, the RJD and Janata Party in Bihar, Janata Party in
Karnataka, the Telugu Desam in Andhra, the DMK in Tamil Nadu, these and other regional and
caste based parties have been part of the national government. Each of these parties derive their
electoral strength from the Dalits, the OBCs, or both. There is hardly a party in India that is not
conscious of the need to make appeals to specific castes or groups of castes, coopt caste leaders
into positions within the party, and take caste into account in the allocation of seats in
parliamentary and state assembly elections.

The formation of BJP-led National Democratic Alliance in 1998 and the Congress-led United
Progressive Alliance suggested that over the years regional and local political parties are
increasing their influence at the Centre by accommodating them as a matter of convenience.
Caste is a determining factor not only at the Central level but at the state and local also. State
politics in India has been particularly the hot bed of political casteism. Andre Beteille says,
―Caste enters much more directly into the composition of Political elites at the state level…Thus,
the Mysore cabinet is dominated by Lingayats and Okkaligs, the Maharashtra Cabinet by
Marathas and some have referred to the Madras Cabinet as federation of dominant castes.‖

Caste politics in Andhra Pradesh seems like a game of cock-fighting between the Kammas and
Reddys. The four major caste groups in Haryana are Bhrahmins, Jats, Ahirs and Scheduled
Castes. Caste-wise, the Jats are the toughest and constitute the single largest group with the
Scheduled Castes coming next. In the case of Karnataka, the tug of war is between two dominant
castes, the Lingayats and Okkalingas. In Maharashtra, there are three main castes viz., Marathas,
Brahmins and Mahars, which play an important role in the politics of the state. Bihar infact
represents the scene of clash among forward castes (Brahmins, Bhumihars, Rajputs, Kayasths),
backward classes (Yadavs and Muslims, popularly known as the M-Y equation), Scheduled
castes (Chamars, Dosadhs, Musahars) and Scheduled Tribes (Santhals, Oraons, Mundas, Hos).
Now, the political parties are mobilizing the lower castes to create the vote banks. There are
several factors which are responsible for the increase in political power of lower castes.

The political mobilization of the lower castes, their increasing incorporation into the Indian
political system, and their rising political power can be attributed to the demise in the ideological
legitimacy of caste among the upper castes; the inclusive character of the Indian National
Congress as a mass based political movement; the intra factional conflicts within the post
independence Congress; the congress strategy of building vote banks among the scheduled castes
and tribes, the Muslims, and the middle and upper castes, the counter-strategy of the non-
congress opposition parties to win support among the other backward castes and to build their
own caste-based alliances, the system of reservations which provided opportunities for access to
higher education, administration, and elected bodies to members of the Scheduled castes and
tribes; and finally the extension of reservations to hundreds of other backward castes.

DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF

DEVELOPMENT
Administration of Development
Development is integral to the aims and activities of the government especially in the developing
countries. Because of paucity of resources, human and material in their counties, the need for
making optimum utilisation of available means and augmenting new means assumes a great
importance. Development administration thus becomes a means through which the government
brings quantitative and qualitative changes in an economy. Government is engaged in not only
fixing priorities but also making efforts to realise them. Though Weidner is said to be the first to
conceptually explain the definition of development administration, many other scholars, like
Riggs, Ferrel Heady, Montgomary, Gant, Pai Panandikar have attempted to define the term in
their own ways. However, before we analyse the different definitions and meanings of the term,
it should be mentioned that all of them agree that development administration is an effort
towards planned transformation of the economy involving not only the sphere of administration
but also formulation of policies and indeed the society as a whole. It is an effort at the
synchronisation of changes in all spheres of development-economic, political, social and cultural.
Thus development is not only viewed in terms of growth process, but it includes a process of
social change. The State plays a leading role in bringing about development through its
administrative system. In order to discharge this role it requires a distinct type of support by
administration which involves, as' has been observed by Swerdlow, special understanding of
problems in the developing countries. These must be perceptible at different operative levels i.e.,
officials must make enough different decisions, adopt enough different policies and engage in
enough different activities to warrant the different designations of development administration.
Thus development administration is simply termed as an action or functioning part of the
government administration. It is action-oriented and places the administration at the centre in
order to facilitate the attainment of development objectives.

For Harry J. Friedman development administration means: i) the implementation of programmes

designed to bring about modernity (i.e.socioeconomic progress and nation-building), and ii) the
changes within the administrative system which increase its capacity to implement the
programmes. According to Hahn Beenlee, development administration is involved in managing a
government or an agency so that it acquires an increasing capability to adapt to and act upon new
and continuing social changes with a view to achieve sustained growth. Development
administiation concentrates on the needs and desires of the people, It is concerned with
formulation of plans, programmes, policies and projects and their implementation. It plays a
central role in carrying out planned change i.e. it is concerned with planning, co-ordination,
control, monitoring and evaluation of plans and programmes. It is not only concerned with the
application of policies as determined by the political representatives in existing situation but also
with introducing efforts to modify existing situations so as to serve the cause of the masses. The
administration of development implies: i) the execution of programmes designed to bring about
progressive improvement; ii) the changes within an administrative system which increases its
capacity to implement such programmes. In brief, administration of development involves the
following objectives: i) application of innovative strategies for development; ii) emphasis on
development at the grassroots level. Development has to be a need-oriented and self-reliant
process; iii) stress on social development and human capital as a major resource; iv)
development has to be viewed not merely as a technological problem but also as an ideological
norm; v) profound and rapid change in order to establish a distinct and just social order; vi)
recognising and highlighting the unity, rather than dichotomy between politics and
administration; . vii) effective and efficient use of scarce resources; viii) creation of a politics-
administrative environment which is oriented towards securing basic needs of the population; ix)
freedom of administrative machinery to express its values and beliefs without fear or favour on
programmes and projects.

Development of Administration or Administrative Development

Development Administration has to be efficient and effective. It has to aim at enlargement of
administrative capabilities and structural and behavioural change. It is this aspect of
administration that is called administrative development or development of administration. In
simple terms it means development of administrative system of administrative health by
introducing-administrative rationalisation and institution building. The purpose implicit in this
concept is not merely changing the administrative procedures and channels but also bringing out
fundamental change in administration that leads to: 1) political development, 2) economic
growth, and 3). social change. In short, administrative development is concerned with: 1) The
capacity of an administrative system to take decisions in order to meet the ever increasing
demands coming from the environment and with the objective of achieving larger political and
socioeconomic goals. 2) Increase in size, in specialisation and division of tasks and in the
professionalization of its personnel. 3) A pattern of increasing effectiveness in the optimum
utilisation of available means and further augmentation of the means, if necessary. 4) Increase in
administrative capability and capacity. 5) Transformation of existing administrative mechanism
into a new machinery through modernising the bureaucracy by external inducement, transfer of
technology and training. 6) Reducing the dependence on foreign experts by producing adequate
trained manpower. 7) Promotion of development initiative.8) Administrative reorganisation and
rationalisation. 9) Making modernisation culturally related. 10) Removing or reducing
bureaucratic immobility and widespread corruption. 11) Reorientation of established agencies,
and the delegation of administrative powers to them. 12) Creation of administrators who can
provide leadership in stimulating and supporting programmes of social and economic
improvement.

The meaning and importance of administrative development as an ingredient of development

administration has been well summed up by Caiden in the following words, "Administrative
reform is an essential ingredient of development in any country, irrespective of the speed and
direction of change. Administrative capacity becomes increasingly important in the
implementation of new policies, plans and ideas. The improvements in administrative capacity
may involve the removal of environmental obstacles, structural alternatives in traditional and
innovatory institutions bureaucratically organised or otherwise.
Actually administration of development and development of administration are interrelated
concepts. Both are dependent on each other. Administration of development is as important as
development of administration. To achieve development goals it is essential that there is proper
assessment of resources, proper plan formulation, evaluation and. implementation, adequate
involvement of people, emphasis on technological change and self-reliance. At the same time we
also need developed bureaucracy, integrity in administration, initiative, innovativeness,
delegation of powers, decentralised decision-making etc. Administrative development cannot
take place without administrative change and reform. Both the concepts support each other and
development of administration is needed for administration of development. As per F. Riggs
'development administration' and 'administrative development' have a chicken and egg kind of
relationship. Superiority of one concept over the other cannot be established.

PROBLEM OF LEVELS OF ANALYSIS IN

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The choice of conceptual framework used to study international relations has provided an
enduring discourse throughout the literature since the 'levels of analysis' debate was initiated in
the late 1950s and 1960s. The 'levels of analysis' addressed the problem of how to study
international politics, in terms of 'conceptual lenses' as Allison (1971) referred to them, using
certain ontological choices to analyse a problem at various levels. Kenneth Waltz in his studies
of conflict in the 1950s, and later Singer (1961) identified distinct levels at which a problem
could be theorised. In his studies of conflict causation the problem of conflict was analysed using
the following perspectives;
i - The Individual Level
ii - The State Level
iii - The International System level
In the context of the 'behavioural revolution' redefining social science during the 1960s, the
Levels of analysis highlighted the scientific way in which international problems could now be
considered. The 'levels of analysis' concept also can be seen as part of the attack on the realist
paradigm, and the state-centricity model, in which states were the supreme unit of analysis.
However this concept was to raise a number of questions, highlighting debates about the
approach taken to academic study. Singer argued that the choice of level and units of analysis
determined what the analyst's conclusions would be. To use Waltz's findings on the cause of
conflict as an example, using the third perspective, he saw the international system as the
permissive cause of conflict due to its anarchic nature, however examining the other levels of
analysis, he saw what he perceived to be the effective causes of conflict.

To illustrate this problem further, Russett's study of military expenditures provides further
evidence of the problems of differing results from conceptual frames of analysis. In this study he
uses first the international system or "macro" level to study, looking at conflict and the role of
alliances as a tool of explanation, after which he studied the domestic or state level, examining
the government budgetary process to find answers. It could be suggested that his study shows
how the choice of level, and its associated ontological choices will influence academic findings.
In Russett's case, he noted that using the international system, he found that conflict rather than
bargaining and burden sharing were looked at, and that the domestic study highlighted the
relationship between legislators and military expenditure, showing the problem from a different
perspective.

As these two case studies have tried to show, Academics were finding that the use of 'levels of
analysis' was leading to vastly different results. It could be suggested that the answer to the
question of 'which level is best suited' depends on the problem, and even then it could be asserted
that the use of all three levels will provide the most latitude for theorising a phenomena.
However, the arguments have not lapsed into obscurity, Mandelbaum, Watkins and Lukes
discourses on the focus for analysis showing the persistently sharp divisions present in the choice
of analysis.

The second issue raised by the 'levels of analysis' debate is the distinction between 'levels of
analysis' and 'units of analysis'. In Singer's work, he failed to differentiate the above two
concepts, leading to them being used interchangeably in subsequent literature. In one academic
journal, The levels of analysis refers to the methodology utilised to examine a phenomena,
whereas the units of analysis on the other hand are the processes and actors selected in order to
solve the problem.

It could be suggested that this is an important distinction as the levels of analysis is more of a
conceptual issue, and the units of analysis a tool to analyse the theoretical level at which the
problem is deemed answerable by the analyst, leading to The third methodological question
arising from the 'levels of analysis' debate is that of the Holism versus Individualism approaches.

The Holism / Individualism question put simply is the way in which an analysis of society is
undertaken. Weber (1904) outlined Holism as a 'macro' level of analysis, selecting a phenomena,
for example economic history, and narrowing the analysis steadily by examining capitalism for
example, and descending further analysing its components and so on, until finally relating the
'micro' facts to the 'macro' problem. The problem with this study which led Weber to abandon it
was the plethora of variables involved which could never be adequately accounted for. Weber
proceeded to refine his theory, leading to the conceptualisation of the 'ideal type'. This involved
taking the most prominent features from a historical situation and organising it into a simple
macro explanation, for example the Napoleonic Wars had at their heart the problem of
Napoleon's military attempt to dominate Europe. This 'macro' or 'whole' view approach was
termed the Holistic approach.

Watkins (1953) argued that the key unit of analysis was the individual, and that Holism had
limited utility, arguing that Holistic ideal types could be compared and measured with reality,
raising the question that if the historical situation has already been analysed, why go to the
trouble of analysing it again with a simplified model ? The Individualism concept can be seen as
an attempt to understand social activity utilising the individual as the key ontological process.
This could be viewed as a bottom-up approach in comparison with Holism, examining the
behavioural patterns and interactions of the individual with the environment. Watkins was an
ardent supporter of individualism, claiming that, "Holistic ideal types, which would abstract
essential traits from a social whole while ignoring individuals, are impossible: they always turn
into individualistic ideal types". In analysing Weber, it could be suggested that as in certain types
of economic theory, the 'Holistic' level of analysis is little more than the aggregation of
individual behaviour, with extremes cancelling one another out, allowing generalisations to be
made. Watkins on the other hand appears to disregard the usefulness of the macro approach, as a
tool to examine large scale phenomena, such as war for example which could be suggested to be
more complex than the interaction of one human with another.

In summary the Holism / Individualism debate was not resolved by the introduction of the 'levels
of analysis' concept, rather it was merely been inflamed, exacerbating divisions between scholars
as to the most suitable method of examining international relations.

NOTION OF LIBERTY IN THE WRITINGS OF

JOHN STUART MILL

Mill was one of the greatest advocates of individual liberty. His views on liberty are contained in
his book Essay on Liberty (1859), and contributed to the development t of the conception of
negative liberty. Mill was writing at a time when the functions of the state were increasing
manifold. Mill saw this expansion with suspicion and as a threat to the liberty of individuals.
Mills contribution beats its significance to his refusal to compromise with individuals‘ liberty
vis-à-vis state intervention. Mill‘s emphatic assertion could be discerned in his contention that
there can be no self development without liberty. While developing the views on Liberty, Mill
effects some changes in Bentham‘s political ideas. He was concerned with the three areas of
liberty: liberty of thought, a defense of the principle of individuality, and the limits of authority
over individual‘s actions. Mill argued that neither the government nor any individual should be
allowed to curtail the expression of opinion since it is valuable. All opinions are valuable and
important because the society directly or indirectly gains from them. If a right opinion is crushed,
the human race is deprived of the opportunity to reinforce through a surviving challenge their
understanding of what is right. Therefore, according to Mill, liberty of thought and expression is
significant. Mill was vocal in discussing the limits of authority over individuals‘ actions. Mill
divided human actions in to two parts: self regarding and other regarding. According to Mill, so
far as the self regarding activities are concerned, man is supreme over his body and mind. But
insofar as the other regarding functions are concerned, the state can put restrictions on them. The
state is, therefore, a necessary evil; it should only provide security to individuals. The more an
individual is dependent on the state, the more he loses the capacity to work. Mill also defended
the right to individuality, meaning, the right to choice. By individuality, Mill meant the property
in human beings that made possible the scrutiny of prevailing ideas and conventions and
subjecting them to the litmus test of reason; the power or capacity for critical enquiry and
responsible thought. Mill regarded coercion as detrimental to individuality as far as self
regarding actions are concerned. Thus, Mill spoke in defence of individuality as an important
ingredient of individual liberty.

Mill‘s idea of liberty can be summed up in the following points:

a. Mill takes a historical view of liberty,
b. In old times, liberty consisted in opposing the ruler,
c. Under popular sovereignty this conflict between ruler and the subjects disappear,
 d. There is a great danger that the majority will oppress the minority and deny freedom to
individuals. This may happen even in a democratic setup.
e. Individual‘s actions can be divided in to two parts; one for private interference and the
other for public control.

Mill‘s concept of liberty has been criticized on several grounds. Firstly, the manner in which
Mill has defined liberty has been highly abstract in nature. Secondly, commentators argue that
society cannot allow an individual to become sovereign over his body and mind. Thirdly, Mill‘s
division of individual‘s actions into self regarding and other regarding is based on imagination
and it cannot be found in reality. Thus, Ernest Barker has aptly called Mill a prophet of empty
liberty and abstract individual.

To sum up, Mill‘s On Liberty was primarily written in protest against the coercive force of
moralism that pervaded Victorian society. Hence, he limited the authority of society over
individuals from his utilitarian perspective that interference with other individual‘s activities is
permitted only if they are likely to cause definite harm to some other persons, thereby violating
their social rights. His defense of freedom of thought and speech was rooted in his emphasis on
individuality and self-development, which formed an antithesis to the Protestant ethic of self-
restraint.

GANDHIAN SATYAGRAHA
The Gandhian philosophy of satyagraha is a natural outcome of the supreme concept of truth. If
truth is the ultimate reality, then it is imperative to safeguard the criteria and foundations of
truth. A votary of God which is the highest Truth and the highest Reality must be utterly selfless
and gentle. He should have an unconquerable determination to fight for the supremacy of
spiritual and moral values. Thus alone can he vindicate his sense of ethical devotion. Satyagraha
means the exercise of the purest soul-force against all injustice, oppression and exploitation.
Suffering and trust are attributes of soul force. The active nonviolent resistance of the ‗heroic
meek‘ makes an immediate appeal to the heart. It wants not to endanger the opponent but to
overwhelm him by the over flooding power of innocence. Satyagraha or stupendous effort at
conversion can be applied against the Government, the social Czars and leaders of
‗orthodoxy‘. Satyagraha is an inherent birthright of a person. It is not merely a sacred right but it
can also be a sacred duty. If the Government does not represent the will of the people, and if it
begins to support dishonesty and terrorism, then it should be disobeyed. But one who wants to
vindicate his rights should be prepared to bear all kinds of suffering.

Gandhi referred to the teaching of Thoreau in this connection. However, Gandhi stated that
Thoreau was not a complete champion of nonviolence. Probably Thoreau limiter his breach of
governmental laws to the revenue law, i.e., he refused to pay taxes. The dynamics of satyagraha
as formulated by Gandhi are broader and more universally applicable. From the family to the
state—wheresoever one meets injustice and untruth—one can resort to satyagraha. In his
autobiography, Gandhi has referred to some experiences of satyagraha practiced in his own
family life. He said that the alphabet of ahimsa is learnt in the domestic school and can be
extended to national and even international levels. Gandhi felt that the Abyssinians, the
Spaniards, the Czechs, the Chinese and the Poles could have offered nonviolent resistance
against the aggressors.

There are different techniques of satyagraha. Fasting can be one form of satyagraha, but it has to
be applied only against those who are bound by ties of close personal affection. Voluntary
migration can be another form of satyagraha. ―Tyranny is a kind of plague and when it is likely
to make us angry or weak, it is wisdom to leave the scene of such temptation,‖ said Gandhi. He
even supported Hijrat. The exodus refers to the planned flight of the Israelites. In Russia, there
was the flight of the Doukhabours who were nonviolent. Gandhi would not consider the
‗scorched earth‘ policy to be a form of satyagraha. He ruled out underground activities, even
though entirely innocent, as a part of legitimate fight for freedom based on truth and
nonviolence.

Satyagraha as conceived by Gandhi is not a formula of social and political disintegration. A

satyagrahi must have first rendered willing obedience to the laws of the state. Gandhi writes: ―a
satyagrahi obeys the laws of the society intelligently and of his own freewill, because he
considers it to be his sacred duty to do so. It is only when a person has thus obeyed the laws of
society scrupulously that he is in a position to judge as to which particular rules are good and just
and which are unjust and iniquitous and only then does the right accrue to him of the civil
disobedience of certain laws in well-defined circumstances.‖ Gandhi claimed to have been by
nature law-abiding. The capacity for civil resistance comes from the discipline undergone in the
process of obeying the civil and moral laws of the state. A satyagrahi while resisting the laws of
the government should see that the social structure is not subverted.

Gandhi laid down strict canons of moral discipline for the satyagrahi. He must have an
unshakeable faith in God, otherwise he will not be able to bear calmly the physical atrocities
perpetrated on his person by the authorities with superior force of violence at the command. He
must not hanker after wealth and fame. He must obey the leader of the satyagraha unit. He
should practice Brahmacharya and should be absolutely fearless and firm in his resolve. He must
have patience, single-minded purposefulness and must not be swayed from the path of duty by
anger or any other passion. Satyagraha can never be resorted to for personal gains. It is a love
process and the appeal is to the heart and not to the sense of fear of the wrong-doer. Thus,
satyagraha is based on personal purification. The Gandhian stress on purity as a criterion for
political power is a great contribution to political thought. It is essential to employ pure means
for serving a righteous cause.

There are different forms of satyagraha. Non cooperation with the evil doer is a mild form.
Civil disobedience of the laws of the government is a strong and extreme form of satyagraha.
There can be individual as well as mass civil disobedience. The latter means spontaneous action
by the masses. In the beginning, masses will have to be rigorously trained for action. According
to Gandhi, complete civil disobedience implying a refusal to render obedience to every single
state-made law can be a very powerful movement. It can become more dangerous than an armed
rebellion; because the stupendous power of innocent suffering undergone on a great scale has
potency. By bringing the scrutinizing glare of public opinion on the evils of an autocratic state,
the fall even of a despotic political regime is ensured.
It is not correct to say that Gandhi would not sanction satyagraha in a democratic form of
government. He had no special attachment for parliamentary democracy. He did not accept the
axiomatic superiority of the majority within parliament. The basic problem, according to him,
was life in accordance with the canons of truth. Several times Gandhi opposed a law or system
even if he were in a minority of one, because for him non cooperation with evil was a sacred
duty. A democracy can be swayed by all types of passions, prejudices and petty considerations,
but a devotee of truth would no t tamely accept this. He would not be content with merely trying
to change the membership of the legislatures after four or five years. He should certainly
educate public opinion. According to the political teachings of Gandhi, satyagraha is a perpetual
law against any thing repugnant to the soul. Even if alone, a man of truth and conscience will
resist the laws and commands issued by a representative legislature if they go against the higher
law of the atman. A true satyagrahi will risk all dangers for the sake of truth. Gandhi wrote:
―But even so a call may come which one dare not neglect, cost it what it may. I can clearly see
the time coming to me when I must refuse obedience to every single state-made law, even
though there may be a certainty of bloodshed. When neglect of the call means a denial of God,
civil disobedience becomes a preemptory duty.‖ Sometimes Gandhian satyagraha is confused
with the passive resistance advocated by the Quakers. But there are vital differences between
them. To begin with, satyagraha is a dynamic force because it contemplates action in resistance
of injustice. Passive resistance is compatible with internal violence towards the enemy but
satyagraha stresses continuous cleansing of the mind. It emphasizes even inner purity. Passive
resistance is mainly contemplated at a political level. Satyagraha can be practiced at all levels—
domestic, social and political. Satyagraha goes beyond passive resistance in its stress on spiritual
and moral teleology because the final source of hope and consolation for the satyagrahi is God.
The Gandhian theory of satyagraha is far more comprehensive than the passive resistance as
advocated in India in 1906-1908. Tilak and Aurobindo would not condemn violence on moral
grounds. But Gandhi accepted the absolution of ahimsa. The passive resistance of 1906-1908
was a political technique of limited application. Sometimes it meant only Swadeshi and boycott,
while at other times it was extended to cover disobedience of unjust laws and decrees. The
Gandhian theory of satyagraha is a philosophy of life and politics and it contemplates stupendous
mass action for paralyzing the total structure of a despotic government.

It is true that there are points of similarity between the ideas of Gandhi and the British liberals,
specially in their grudging attitude to the spheres of state action but they emerge from different
traditions. Gandhi was more radical and trenchant in his opposition to the state than any British
liberal nurtured in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Essentially Gandhi was a moral prophet
who had declared his unequivocal resistance to all concentrations of power, force and violence.
The influence of the individualistic spirit of the old Sanyasi and the Bhikshu tradition of India
combined with the protestant individualism of Thoreau and the radical anti-static of Tolstoy was
too pronounced in Gandhi.

USE AND ABUSE OF ARTICLE 356 OF THE CONSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution has acquired quite some notoriety due to its alleged
misuse. The essence of the Article is that upon the breach of certain defined state of affairs, as
ascertained and reported by the Governor of the State concerned (or otherwise), the President
concludes that the ‗constitutional machinery‘ in the State has failed. Thereupon the President
makes a ‗Proclamation of Emergency,‘ dismissing the State Legislature and Executive. During a
state of emergency, the President is vested with tremendous discretionary powers. Any
legislation or constitutional provision that abrogates any of the basic principles of democratic
freedom is anathema to most people and the more so to the people of the largest democracy in
the world. Having just gained independence after a long and continuous struggle, the people of
India would naturally have the greatest interest in preserving all the freedoms envisioned in a
democratic society. If the members of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution included a
provision that permits a Government to dismiss a duly elected representative body of the people
and suspend those freedoms in violation of even the crudest interpretation of a ‗separation of
powers,‘ then common sense suggests that it is only to deal with the direst of circumstances and
nothing less. But it seems that the remedial nature of the Article has been perverted to impose the
domination of the Central Government upon a State Government that does not subscribe to its
views. Central control over regional governments is essential for the integrity of nations that
have federal systems of government, and Article 356 was designed to preserve this integrity, but
what remains to be seen is whether it is being used at the cost of sacrificing the interests of
democratic freedom.

THE EXPERIENCE OF USE AND ABUSE OF ARTICLE 356

The Sarkaria Commission recommended extremely rare use of Article 356. The Commission
observed that, although the passage, ‘. . . the government of the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of this Constitution . . .‘ is vague, each and every breach and
infraction of constitutional provisions, irrespective of their significance, extent, and effect,
cannot be treated as constituting a failure of the constitutional machinery. According to the
Commission, Article 356 provides remedies for a situation in which there has been an actual
Break-down of the constitutional machinery in a State. Any abuse or misuse of this drastic power
would damage the democratic fabric of the Constitution. The report discourages a literal
construction of Article 356(1). The Commission, after reviewing suggestions placed before it by
several parties, individuals and organizations, decided that Article 356 should be used sparingly,
as a last measure, when all available alternatives had failed to prevent or rectify a breakdown of
constitutional machinery in a State. Before taking recourse to the provisions of Article 356,
all attempts should be made to resolve the crisis at State level.

The present situation in India shows that the ‗dead-letter‘ provision - as Dr. Ambedkar hoped it
would be - has become a frequently invoked, not-so-dead Article; it has been activated more than
a hundred times till today. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution
(NCRWC), which was established on February 22, 2000, on the basis of a joint resolution of the
Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Legal
Affairs), submitted its extensive report in March 2002. In its analysis, the NCRWC stated that in
at least twenty out of the more than one hundred instances, the invocation of Article 356 might
be termed as a misuse. It is difficult to believe that, during his tenure as the Governor of the State
of Uttar Pradesh, Romesh Bhandari made any real effort to install a popularly elected
government or to conduct a constitutionally mandated floor-test to test the strength of the
Legislative Assembly in the State for identifying a majority party before prompting the
application of the Article by the President. After the fall of the Mayawati Government in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, it might have been justifiable to impose President‘s Rule. But it was also
necessary to hold fresh elections as soon as possible. The mala fides of the Union Executive in
preventing the assumption of office by an unfavorable political entity became clearly manifest in
Governor Bhandari‘s actions and the decision of the United Front Government at the Center, to
re-impose President‘s Rule in Uttar Pradesh. The worst damage may possibly have been done
through the office of the Governor, because the Governor cannot be held responsible for his or
her actions. H. M. Seervai pointed out that the Governor can be removed only by the President
and that the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers; hence the Governor is in
office pretty much at the pleasure of the Union Executive. This may act as a bias whenever the
Governor‘s duty requires him to go against the desires of the Union Executive. In its report, the
NCRWC recommended that the President should appoint or remove the Governor in consultation
with the Chief Minister of the State. This may act as a restraint on the misuse of power by the
Office of the Governor.

Another example of misuse of Article 356 was the imposition of President‘s Rule in the State of
Gujarat from September1996 to October 1996, following the incidents of violence indulged in by
members of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly. Soli Sorabjee pointed out that violence within the
Assembly cannot be treated as an instance of failure of the constitutional machinery; it would
otherwise become very easy for malicious legislators to dissolve a duly elected legislative body
by creating pandemonium in the Assembly and thereby prompting improper invocation of
Article 356. The correct procedure to be followed in such a situation is to pass suitable
legislation for disqualifying the guilty legislators.

On the other extreme of misuse of Article 356 was the failure of the Union Executive – which
was of the same political belief as the Government of Narendra Modi in Gujarat - to invoke
Article 356 during the carnage following the Godhra train incident on February 27, 2002, in
the State of Gujarat. To quote the words of Fali Nariman, noted lawyer and nominated member
of the Upper House (Rajya Sabha) of the Indian Parliament during a parliamentary debate: ‗Vital
statistics tells us that there are more than 100000 persons in refugee camps and more than
30,000 people have been chargesheeted. Are these figures not enough to compel the Government
to take action under articles 355 and 356?‘ Fali Nariman also rightly pointed out in an interview
with a newspaper correspondent that the Constitution may not have envisaged a situation where
an emergency has arisen in a State where the ruling party is of the same political persuasion as
the one at the Center and, hence, the Center might be biased against dissolving that government
by invoking Article 356. He also pointed out that the word ‗otherwise‘ in the text of Article 356
becomes instrumental in such a situation to allow the President to act without waiting for the
‗Governor’s Report.‘

CONCLUDING NOTE
It is evident that there is a lack of effective safeguards against the abuse of Article 356 of the
Indian Constitution. The safeguard of ‗parliamentary approval‘ - outlined in Article 356(3) of
a Proclamation under Article 356(1) could be biased because the Party that is in power at the
Center generally dominates Parliament by a majority vote. Furthermore, even a vote in
Parliament declaring a particular imposition (or failure to impose) of President‘s Rule to be
wrongful cannot undo the damage already done.
However, the repeal of Article 356 is not advisable because the Indian polity is rife with crises
and there has to be some contingency against a constitutional deadlock in a State. The NCRWC
also advised against the repeal of Article 356, stating that this would create an imbalance in
Union-State relations in upholding constitutional governance throughout India and that in many
more instances than not the use of Article 356 was inevitable. Another option is to introduce
further checks on the exercise of power under Article 356, by amendment. Even this is not
advisable because it defeats the very purpose of the Article of dealing expeditiously with
emergencies of constitutional failure in a State.

Therefore, the most practical course left open may be to let history take its course. Eventually,
the public opinion in India, we fervently hope, will awaken to the fact that Article 356 may
veritably have become a noose that is slowly tightening around the neck of democracy in India,
suffocating the right of the people under the Constitution. In the meantime, to nurture budding
public opinion we do have a resource not to be underestimated, which is the power of judicial
review of the Supreme Court, which has on more than one occasion shown that it is a power to
be reckoned with. So we will have to suffice for now with occasional outcries against the Union
Executive unsheathing or failing to unsheathe, at its sweet pleasure that double-edged sword
called Article 356.

73RD CONSTITUION (AMENDMENT ACT)

The revitalization of Panchayati Raj manifested through the 73 rd Constitutional Amendment owes
its origin to the dynamic leadership of Rajiv Gandhi. In his address to the 5 Workshop on
th

‗Responsive Administration‘ held at Coimbatore in June, 1988, he said that ―If our district
administration is not sufficiently responsive, the basic reason is that it is not only sufficiently
representative. With the decay of Panchayati Raj Institutions, the administration has got isolated
from the people thus dulling its sensitivity to the needs of the people”. With events moving at a
faster pace, Panchayati Raj emerged as a major institutional channel of such administration. The
Constitution 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 came into effect from 24 th April 1993. No one disputes
that it is a historic legislation.. The basic objective of the democratic decentralization through
reactivation of the Panchayati Raj system was to realize Gandhiji‘s concept of ―Swarajya‖.

Features of 73rd Constitutional Amendment

 Part IX has been inserted immediately after ‗Part VIII‘ of the Constitution and
after the ‗Tenth Schedule‘ of the Constitution, ‗ Eleventh Schedule ‗ has been
added (Article 243G) which gives the detail list of functions to be performed by
PRIs. Panchayats shall be constituted in every state at the village, intermediate
and district levels, thus bringing about uniformity in the PR structure. However,
the states having a population not exceeding 20 lakh have been given the option
of not having any Panchayat at the intermediate level.
 While the elections in respect of all the members to Panchayats at the level will be
direct, the election in respect of the post of the Chairman at the intermediate and
district level will be indirect. The mode of election of Chairman to the village
level has been left to the State Government to decide. All members including the
chairperson shall have the right to vote.
  Reservation of seats for SC/STs has been provided in proportion to their
population at each level. Not less than one-third of the total membership has been
reserved for women (in both reserved and general category) and these seats may
be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. Similar
reservations have been made in respect of the office of the chairperson also.
 A uniform term of five years has been provided for the PRIs and in the event of
dissolution or super session, election to constitute the body should be completed
before the expiry of six months from the date of dissolution. It the remainder
period is less than six months, fresh elections may not be necessary. Panchayat
constituted upon dissolution may continue for the remainder of the period .
 With a view to ensuring continuity, it has been provided in the Act that all the
Panchayats existing immediately before the commencement of this Amendment
Act will continue till the expiry of their duration unless dissolved by a resolution
to that effect passed by the State Legislatures concerned or any law relating to the
panchayats which before the amendment came into force, not inconsistent with its
provisions shall continue, unless amended or repealed.
 There shall be an Election Commission for the conduct of all elections to the
panchayats consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the
State Government. It shall also be in charge of superintendence, direction and
control of the preparation of electoral rolls.
 The State Legislature have been given the power to authorise the Panchayats to
levy, collect and appropriate suitable local taxes and also provide for making
grants-in-aid to the Panchayats from the consolidated fund of the concerned state.
 A State Finance Commission has to be constituted once in every five years to
review the financial position of the Panchayat and to make suitable
recommendations to the Governor as to the principles which should govern the
distribution between the state and the panchayats of revenue, whether net
proceeds of the taxes, duties, tolls, and fees leviable by the state or grants in aid
and recommend measures to strengthen the financial position of the panchayat
bodies and deliberate on any other matter referred to it by the Governor. The
Constitution 73 rd amendment act adds a sub clause (bb) to Article 280 of the
Constitution. According to this sub clause, the Central Finance Commission, in
addition to other stipulated duties, shall also make recommendations to the
President regarding the measures needed to augment the then Consolidated Fund
of a State to supplement the resources of the Panchayats in the State on the basis
of the recommendations made by the Finance Commission of the State.
 The State Legislatures should bring in necessary amendments to their Panchayat
Acts within a maximum period of one year from the Commencement of this
Amendment Act so as to conform to the provision contained in the Constitution

Some Observations on the 73rd Amendment Act

Firstly, the most debated problem till recently was giving constitutional recognition to
the PRIs. It was often observed by the scholars that the founding fathers of the Constitution gave
only lip service to democratic decentralisation by mentioning it in Article 40 of the Constitution
in (Part IV) the Directive Principles of State Policy. But after the 73 Constitutional Amendment
rd
Act, the PRIs have got constitutional legitimacy. Indian federalism has moved a step further in
that up till now there had been two tiers of governance; henceforth, there would be three
acknowledged tiers of governance. However, there is a strong body of opinion that in order to
give an air of finality to the scheme, a separate list, namely the panchayat list could have been
included in the seventh schedule, which lists subjects for legislation into the Union, the State List
and the Concurrent List.
Secondly, the present amendment does address the issue of uniformity of structure across
the country but leaves certain important matters, such as size of a panchayat at a level, to the
discretion of the state governments.
Thirdly, PRIs by and large, had failed because of irregular elections and frequent
suppression and suspension. The chronic problem was rightly been taken care of by the recent
amendment. However not all states have been dutiful in complying with the provisions. Court
intervention has been necessary, as for example, in the case of Orissa and Uttar Pradesh to secure
compliance (Chaudhrai, 2003). Courts also had to intervene to ensure compliance with the
reservation clause in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.
Fourthly, the Gram Sabha is an institution, which provides an opportunity to participate
meaningfully in governance, to all the people willing and capable of participating in the
development process. The 73 rd Constitutional Amendment makes the establishment of Gram
Sabha mandatory. It however, leaves it to the State Governments to spell out its jurisdictions and
powers. Most state legislation assign to Gram Sabha a ceremonial, tokenistic role, e.g., endorsing
proposals, making recommendations, considering annual accounts, reviewing development
plans, scrutinising completed works. Other functions entrusted to Gram Sabha include those like
promoting harmony and unity in the village, mobilising voluntary labour and contributions in
cash or kind, rendering assistance in implementation of development schemes, and promoting
programmes for adult education and family welfare (Sharma, 2004). Moreover scepticism has
been expressed regarding direct election for the village panchayat, as arguably it would make
him a ‗first among equals‘ relegation other participants to a less significant position. Besides, the
presence of
MPs and MLAs in local bodies might overwhelm local leaders.
Fifthly, yet another problem relating to the functioning of the local bodies has been the
love-hate relationship between the local level bureaucracies and the elected representatives of
PRIs. Due to the lack of defined roles for the two, both have had a contentious working
relationship rather than displaying the required harmony. This has been one of the practical and
the more important reasons for the failure of PRIs. The cooperation of the bureaucracy would be
vital in working out the details of devolution of powers and functions, as stipulated by the act, in
each case, for instance. If such cooperation were not forthcoming, implementation of
programmes and policies would run into roadblocks, making the ideal of local self-governance
more a chimera. If the bureaucracy continues to be unenthusiastic about local self-governance, as
it has been in the past, for rationales of its own, most initiative for empowerment of local self-
governance and the ideal of participatory democracy itself would be lost. Hence the chief but
unrecognised player in the venture is the bureaucracy. Much would depend on the way it
perceives this change and vouches or otherwise for it. It would help to inquire in to the
―rationales‖ for which local government has been considered unfit to shoulder the responsibility
for development on the part of the responsible administrators and redeeming the same.
Cooperation and commitment the part of the bureaucracy would be crucial in bringing about the
desired state of affairs with respect to local governance and administration. Significantly,
devolution is an executive process, which means that the statutory provisions need detailing in
terms of administrative rules and procedures-procurement rules, reporting structures,
compensation schemes, accounting systems etc. without which the statutory provision is a mere
skeletal framework without much substance to it. This is necessary if the 11 th and 12 schedules
are not to get reduced to being mere shopping lists.
Finally, other problems related to PRIs, during the last three decades have been the status
of Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads, the inadequacy of finances and lack of involvement of
PRIs in rural development planning. The amendment has tried to take care of all of these
problems by bringing them into the statute book. However, certain problems have persisted.
There has been a general reluctance to concede political space to the underprivileged in
panchayats. As aforesaid, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh reportedly have not been dutiful in
implanting the reservation provision of the act. Hence, could it be claimed with any degree of
confidence that the backward sections would be articulate and effective or rather, and more
realistically, they would get overwhelmed, as is feared, by the power elite? Would the state
bureaucracy, affect a change in stance and work in cooperation with the local government? Or
would a stint with a panchayat, harm the individual career prospects of bureaucrats? Would
devolution of powers and functions, in fact, take place in practice as it is stipulated on paper?
Would increase in private and foreign stake in urban development skew the balance against the
urban poor in plan priorities? These and others would be some of the pertinent questions that
would need to be continually monitored by means of empirical research and rectified by policy
in this regard, on course.

WORLD SYSTEM

World-system theory is a macrosociological perspective that seeks to explain the dynamics of the
―capitalist world economy‖ as a ―total social system‖. Its first major articulation, and classic example of
this approach, is associated with Immanuel Wallerstein, who in 1974 published what is regarded as a
seminal paper, The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative
Analysis. In 1976 Wallerstein published The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the
Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. This is Wallerstein‘s landmark
contribution to sociological and historical thought and it triggered numerous reactions, and inspired many
others to build on his ideas. Because of the main concepts and intellectual building blocks of world-
system theory –which will be outlined later–, it has had a major impact and perhaps its more warm
reception in the developing world.

World-system research is largely qualitative, although early on Wallerstein rejected the distinction
between nomothetic and idiographic methodologies to understand the world. For Wallerstein, there is an
objective world which can be quantitatively understood, but it is, no matter for how long it has existed, a
product of history. But to the most part, his methods are associated with history and with interpretive
sociology. His work is methodologically somewhere in between Marx and Weber, both of whom were
important inspirations for his own work.

There are three major intellectual building blocks of world-system theory, as conceived by Wallerstein:
the Annales school, Marx, and dependence theory. These building blocks are associated with
Wallerstein‘s life experience and exposure to various issues, theories, and situations. World-system
theory owes to the Annales school, whose major representative is Fernand Braudel, its historical
approach. Wallerstein got from Braudel‘s his insistence on the long term (la longue dureé). He also
learned to focus on geo-ecological regions as units of analysis (think of Braudel‘s The Mediterranean),
attention to rural history, and reliance on empirical materials from Braudel. The impact of the Annales is
at the general methodological level. From Marx, Wallerstein learned that (1) the fundamental reality if
social conflict among materially based human groups, (2) the concern with a relevant totality, (3) the
transitory nature of social forms and theories about them, (4) the centrality of the accumulation process
and competitive class struggles that result from it, (5) a dialectical sense of motion through conflict and
contradiction. Wallerstein‘s ambition has been to revise Marxism itself. World-system theory is in many
ways an adaptation of dependency theory (Chirot and Hall, 1982). Wallerstein draws heavily from
dependency theory, a neo-Marxist explanation of development processes, popular in the developing
world, and among whose figures are Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a Barzilian. Dependency theory focuses
on understanding the ―periphery‖ by looking at core-periphery relations, and it has flourished in
peripheral regions like Latin America. It is from a dependency theory perspective that many
contemporary critiques to global capitalism come from. Other important influences in Wallerstein‘s work,
still present in contemporary world system research, are Karl Polanyi and Joseph Schumpeter. From the
latter comes world system interest in business cycles, And from the former, the notion of three basic
modes of economic organization: reciprocal, redistributive, and market modes. These are analogous to
Wallerstein‘s concepts of mini-systems, world-empires, and world-economies.

For Wallerstein, "a world-system is a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups,
rules of legitimation, and coherence. Its life is made up of the conflicting forces which hold it together by
tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remold it to its advantate. It has the
characteristics of an organism, in that is has a lifespan over which its characteristics change in some
respects and remain stable in others… Life within it is largely self-contained, and the dynamics of its
development are largely internal" (Wallerstein). A world-system is what Wallerstein terms a "world-
economy", integrated through the market rather than a political center, in which two or more regions are
interdependent with respect to necessities like food, fuel, and protection, and two or more polities
compete for domination without the emergence of one single center forever (Goldfrank, 2000).

In his own first definition, Wallerstein (1974) said that a world-system is a "multicultural terirtorial
division of labor in which the production and exchange o basic goods and raw materials is necessary for
the everyday life of its inhabitants." This division of labor refers to the forces and relations of production
of the world economy as a whole and it leads to the existence of two interdependent regions: core and
periphery. These are geographically and culturally different, one focusing on labor-intensive, and the
other on capital-intensive production. (Goldfrank, 2000). The core-periphery relationship is structural.
Semi-peripheral states acts as a buffer zone between core and periphery, and has a mix of the kinds of
activities and institutions that exist on them (Skocpol, 1977). Among the most important structures of the
current world-system is a power hierarchy between core and periphery, in which powerful and wealthy
"core" societies dominate and exploit weak and poor peripheral societies. Technology is a central factor in
the positioning of a region in the core or the periphery. Advanced or developed countries are the core, and
the less developed are in the periphery. Peripheral countries are structurally constrained to experience a
kind of development that reproduces their subordinate status (Chase-Dunn and Grimes, (1995). The
differential strength of the multiple states within the system is crucial to maintain the system as a whole,
because strong states reinforce and increase the differential flow of surplus to the core zone (Skocpol,
1977). This is what Wallerstein called unequal exchange, the systematic transfer of surplus from
semiproletarian sectors in the periphery to the high-technology, industrialized core (Goldfrank, 2000).
This leads to a process of capital accumulation at a global scale, and necessarily involves the
appropriation and transformation of peripheral surplus.

On the poltical side of the world-system a few concepts deem highlighting. For Wallerstein, nation-states
are variables, elements within the system. States are used by class forces to pursue their interest, in the
case of core countries. Imperialism refers to the domination of weak peripheral regions by strong core
states. Hegemony refers to the existence of one core state teomporarily outstripping the rest. Hegemonic
powers maintain a stable balance of power and enforce free trade as long as it is to their advantage.
However, hegemony is temporary due to class struggles and the diffusion of technical advantages.
Finally, there is a global class struggle. The current world-economy is characterized by regular cyclical
rhythms, which provide the basis of Wallerstein's periodization of modern history (Goldfrank, 2000).
After our current stage, Wallerstein envisions the emergence of a socialist world-government, which is
the only-alternative world-system that could maintain a high level of productivity andchange the
distribution, by integrating the levels of political and economic decision-making.

Although some researchers pursue this approach around the country, it has had its greatest mpact among
intellectuals in the third-world, where Wallerstein is regarded a first-rate intellectual and contributor to
the understanding of world-dynamics. Most publications take place in the Journal of World Systems
Research, and in the Review published by the Fernand Braudel Center. Within the American Sociological
Association, there is a chapter on the Political Economy of the World System. In addition, Wallerstein
was president of the International Sociological Association between 1994 and 1998. Although is attention
has moved more towards the philosophy of the social sciences, Wallerstein continues to be the major
figure in world-system research. After legitimizing historical sociology for its own sake, world-system
research has inspired numerous research programs, with perhaps the most notorious one to date being the
study of long-term business cycles. In addition, it is an approach widely used to talk about development
dynamics and to understand the relationships between the first world and the third world. As an
interdisciplinary theory, it has also drawn the attention of scholars from several disciplines in the social
sciences: history, anthropology, cultural studies, economic history, development studies.

AMERICA’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS INDIA AND PAKISTAN

America‘s attitude towards India and Pakistan has changed significantly since the final years of
the Clinton Administration and were provided with dramatic impetus during the subsequent
tenures of President Bush, one of the hallmarks of which is the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal.
While the U.S.-India relationship was instructed to transform into a close bilateral relationship
based on shared values, interests and inter-societal ties, manifest in the areas of military-to
military-relations, counter-terror policies and public diplomacy; Pakistan was expected to
achieve a „soft landing, where nothing monumental was to be expected of the country in
political, economic or social terms, in the second tenure of President Bush – the era of de-
hyphenation had started in earnest. The U.S. administration was instructed to break away from
past foreign policy of balancing the often conflicting demands of India and Pakistan and instead
―pursue a differentiated policy toward the region centered on „a decoupling of India and Pakistan
in U.S. calculations. The process of de-hyphenating the two countries in the minds of U.S. policy
makers consisted of three broad strands: 1) U.S. relations with both countries would be governed
on the basis of the intrinsic value they offer to the U.S. rather than based on fears of how
relations with one would affect relations with the other; 2) the U.S. would recognize India as a
nation on course to ―becoming a major Asian power of some consequence‖, and as such merited
greater appreciation of its ability in terms of collaboration and resistance, not only in South Asia
but across a broader geographical spectrum; 3) the U.S. must recognize Pakistan as a country in
„serious crisis, requiring assistance to achieve a soft landing to dampen disturbing economic and
social trends. This was to be achieved by reaching out to the Pakistani populace, rather than the
Pakistani State alone. The discrepancy between the development path (economic, social and
military) of India and Pakistan and as players on the international stage had never been realized
in such overt terms before. Furthermore, in keeping with past trends, while Pakistan continued to
be a recipient of U.S. economic and military aid, India progressed into the role of a much
coveted economic partner.

Historically, the U.S. has always been more comfortable with the Indian nuclear arsenal than it
has been with the Pakistani arsenal. The U.S. considers India a regional, if not global, influential
and improving ties with her is a top priority. Far from an influential of any sort, Pakistan is seen
as an irritant and dumped with the Middle East precisely because of its problematic status for the
U.S. Only recently has the U.S. grudgingly accepted the reality that the current war in
Afghanistan cannot be won without Pakistan‘s help. Even so, Pakistan is seen as a headache,
something the U.S. wishes to do away with but can‘t. The war in East Pakistan (what is now
Bangladesh), Pakistan‘s proliferation history, support for insurgent groups in Kashmir and her
part in the initiation of the Kargil crisis have only exacerbated the situation further. Whereas
Pakistan is tolerated as a nuclear power, India and Israel, the only other two countries to go
nuclear outside the NPT, have been accepted by the U.S. as nuclear powers - the U.S. ―conceded
India as a de jure nuclear power and has long supported Israel‘s program actively and passively.‖
India‘s elevated status vis-à-vis its nuclear programme is essentially the product of its regional
importance boosted by its reputation as a responsible nuclear power, such that nuclear capability
will allow New Delhi to compete strategically with Beijing. Rhetoric aside, Washington and
Islamabad continue to have very divergent interests: Pakistan seeks to retain militant elements
under the nuclear umbrella, whereas the U.S. wants Pakistan to do away with them in view of
Washington‘s, and significantly New Delhi‘s, security needs. However, given the memory of the
Soviet war as well as Washington‘s unwillingness to accept Pakistan as a nuclear State that lend
credence to Pakistani fears that the U.S. wants to dismantle Pakistan‘s nuclear programme, it is
unlikely that the aims of the two will converge in the near future. For the most part, Pakistanis
are convinced that America wants to do away with their nuclear programme; the civil nuclear
deal between the U.S. and India is seen as a stark signal in lending truth to such fear.

Washington has time and again waived or swept under the carpet nuclear concerns when it has
suited her needs in the region; examples: Nixon, Carter and Reagan. It has withdrawn such
waivers and vociferously campaigned against Pakistan‘s nuclear programme when her use for
Pakistan as a partner has dwindled or been gained through coercive diplomacy; example: Ford,
Bush (Sr. and Jr.), and Clinton. The U.S. stand on Pakistan‘s nuclear programme is that they are
worried about proliferation and what has been labelled in the Western press the threat of the
Islamic Bomb; significantly, these fears go back to the beginning of Pakistan‘s nuclear
programme or rather when the Americans got wind of Pakistan‘s nuclear aspirations and as such
cannot be traced specifically to A.Q. Khan or the current talibanization of Pakistani society.

India, on the other hand, although faced criticism, was not equated with such fears. In the end,
India‘s regional strategic influence and now global economic importance trumped concerns over
her nuclear programme – its use as a bulwark against Chinese expansion and the size and pace of
growth of its economy mean that she has essentially been accepted as a nuclear power while
Pakistan continues to face Western censure regarding its nuclear programme.

With the exception of China, Islamabad does not enjoy the global nuclear trade that New Delhi
has been allowed to partake in, in current years. As far back as the Carter Administration,
Pakistan saw itself imposed with heavy sanctions while India was wooed as a potential nuclear
market. In a complete reversal of policy, America has time and again sounded displeasure with
Chinese help for the Pakistani programme in spite of (recently) entering into civil-nuclear
arrangements with India along with 45 other countries and the fact that Pakistan has maintained
strict safeguards around its nuclear programme since 2005.

The U.S.-India nuclear deal (2009) will allow India to buy U.S. dual-use nuclear technology,
which includes materials and equipment that could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess
plutonium, ―potentially creating the material for nuclear bombs.‖ Furthermore, it will also
receive imported fuel for its nuclear reactors The opposition to Sino-Pakistan nuclear
cooperation is all the more puzzling for two reasons: 1) the Bush Administration invested huge
amounts of political capital into lobbying the U.S. Congress to amend components of the Atomic
Energy Act (primarily section 123 et seq). Previously, the Act allowed nuclear cooperation with
non-nuclear weapon States only after complete safeguards had been secured. After amending the
Act, the administration, along with the government of India, made a concerted push to convince
the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to make an exceptional waiver for the latter to exempt it
from the full scope safeguards clause.

The supposed rationale behind opposing the Sino-Pakistani deal lies in the fact that China is
acting outside the mandate of the NSG, i.e., unlike the U.S., it is not seeking to exempt Pakistan
from the regulations of the NSG, an exemption critics of the Sino-Pakistani nuclear deal know
China will never be able to secure, given Pakistan‘s proliferation history. Equally important if
not more is the fact that the Chinese move outside the NSG is seen as an indication of ―China‘s
growing nuclear assertiveness.‖ 2) As Henry Sokolsk argues, the deal essentially translates into
―sending, or allowing others to send, fresh fuel to India - including yellowcake and lightly
enriched uranium that will free up Indian domestic sources of fuel to be solely dedicated to
making many more bombs than they would otherwise have been able to make,‖ Indian promises
of only using the material for peaceful use hardly prove comforting, given that it had promised to
do the same, i.e., use the energy for civilian and peaceful purposes right up till it conducted its
first nuclear weapons test in 1974.

Furthermore, the deal does not impose a cap on the number of nuclear weapons India can
produce or on its fissile material production. As for meeting energy needs, there are certainly less
costly ways of meeting the requirement, such as making India‘s existing electricity grid more
efficient, restructuring the country‘s coal industry, and expanding the use of renewable energy
sources. Also, the safeguards mandated by the U.S.-India nuclear agreement apply only to
facilities and materials manufactured by India after the agreement was signed (so that it does not
cover fissile production pre-agreement).

In contrast to Tellis‘s argument that the U.S.-India nuclear deal meets with required safeguard
and security rules, William C. Potter66 argues that the ―agreement appears to have been
formulated without a comprehensive high-level review of its potential impact on
nonproliferation, the significant engagement of many of the government‘s most senior
nonproliferation experts, or a clear plan for achieving its implementation … Indeed, it bears all
the signs of a top-down administrative directive specifically designed to circumvent the
interagency review process and to minimize input from any remnants of the traditional
„nonproliferation lobby.‖ How much the U.S. gains from such a relationship with India
strategically is up for debate – however, the desire to placate the Indian ―sense of deprivation‖ 68
is something that will go a long way in solidifying relations between the two countries. Fair
argues that the rationale behind a U.S. nuclear deal with Pakistan will arise out of different
dynamics and reasons than the one with India: „to reset bilateral relations that are bedevilled
with layers of mistrust on both sides. Significantly, the U.S. does not need to arm Pakistan to act
as a counterweight to another giant – it only needs to do so to overcome the trust deficit. In
contrast, the U.S.-India nuclear deal allows the latter to compete strategically with China on a
global level and lends recognition to India‘s non-proliferation and nuclear power status.

The questions Pakistan needs to answer are these: for how long will overcoming the trust deficit
be a priority with the U.S.? For as long as the conflict in Afghanistan lasts? And, how long is
that? In addition to the fact that the U.S. does not need, in fact does not want, Pakistan to be a
nuclear power; Pakistan has further tarnished its image worldwide by proliferating nuclear
secrets to countries such as Iran, North Korea and Libya, and initiating the Kargil war. Pakistan
is seen as an irresponsible State, and together with how „Islamic terrorism‘ has taken over the
Western imagination, the threat of an „Islamic bomb‘ is something that even Pakistan‘s most
ardent supporters on the Western stage will have a tough time warding off. Exacerbating the
situation is Pakistan‘s alleged support for international militant groups. In fact, because of such
support, efforts that have been made to improve nuclear safeguards since 2005 have been
overshadowed. Bush‘s explanation of the discriminatory nature (against Pakistan and in favour
of India) of the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, that the two countries had „different histories‘ lends
explicit credence to the constructivist argument of ―a gun in the hands of a friend is a different
thing from one in the hands of an enemy.‖ 69 Whereas India is considered a „friend‘, Pakistan is
denied the same status even if one were to disagree with the stronger claim of the latter being
considered an „enemy.

Tom Captain, the Vice Chairman of Deloitte LLP's aerospace and defence practice, asserts that
India may very well be the most important market in the defence sales sector in the years 2010
and 2011. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, for the years 2004-
2008, India was the second largest recipient of major conventional weapons, accounting for
seven per cent of total arms imports.70 While the main thrust of American arms sale to Pakistan
has been to boost its counter-insurgency skills and significantly depart from its conventional
emphasis on countering India, the Obama Administration has been busy trying to woo India
away from the former‘s decades old collaboration with Russia as a primary supplier of military
equipment (about 71 per cent 71).

In toeing the line of Indian sentiments vis-à-vis maintaining the military balance in the region,
the sale of F-16s by the U.S. to Pakistan was followed by a less publicized but similar sale to
India as well. Fair asserts that ―India is in some sense the long-term winner in all of this …
Obviously, India gets a lot of stuff as well. But over the long term, India is very much our
partner. If you look at the kinds of stuff that the Indian military is doing with the U.S. military, it
is qualitatively different from the stuff that the United States is doing with the Pakistan
military.‖More recently, the Obama Administration has made a concerted push to convince India
to buy jet fighters from America rather than Russia (with whom India has been engaged in talks
over the sale of 29 MiG-29K carrier-borne jet fighters). Although the public rhetoric surrounding
American overtures to India vis-à-vis the arms trade are cushioned in rhetoric about closer
political and strategic alliances, the fact remains that a coup of such military contracts will be a
huge boon to American defence contractors. Pakistani purchases are nowhere near the type made
by India, both in terms of magnitude and type of equipment bought. In addition to purchasing
weapons from the U.S. paid for substantially by American grants, Pakistan has been the
beneficiary of U.S. military aid in equipment required to boost counterinsurgency operations
such as night vision goggles and helicopters. The Indian defence establishment, on the other
hand, pays for its purchases with its own funds and trades in more advanced weapons with the
U.S. than does Pakistan, e.g., in 2009, India became the first ever international recipient of eight
Boeing Co P-8I maritime patrol aircraft in the largest U.S. arms transfer to India to date. The P-8
is a long-range maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft, the purchase of
which had followed India‘s procurement of six Lockheed Martin Corp C-130J Super Hercules
military transport planes valued at about $1 billion in 2008. 73The U.S. has been trying to
convince Pakistan that the enemy at the gates is not India but the country‘s internal situation; any
equipment, military deal or alliance that jeopardizes Indian security or economic interests is
unlikely to come about between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Amongst other potential deals, European, American and Russian companies are vying for a
contract with India on its planned $10 billion purchase of 126 multirole combat aircraft for its air
force; the deal would be a near record foreign sales coup for the firms. The growing arms trade
between India and the U.S. is not so much the result of efforts to counterbalance the rise of China
but the emergence of India as one of the world‘s leading military markets. American defence
contractors are competing with Russian and European arms manufactures to get a slice of the pie
that is the Indian economy. In doing so, India and America are in the process of forming a closer
strategic and security relationship that will take both countries into a long-term alliance.

In contrast, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is based significantly on arms aid, wrangling over
equipment sometimes dating back decades (for example the F-16s and more recently,
surveillance drones) and insufficient (in terms of quality and modernity) tokens of gratitude or
acknowledgement of the latter as an ally in the „War on Terror‘. While American military efforts
in Pakistan concentrate on „ramping up‘ Pakistan‘sfight against militants, India sees a dramatic
modernization of its defence industry through arms and equipment that are not on the table for
Islamabad.

Tellis justifies the U.S.-India nuclear deal with the argument that India‘s ―growing technological
mastery over different nuclear fuel cycles‖ will make the ―international (nuclear) regime stronger
through its inclusion rather than its continued exclusion.‖ 74 The impression that India is a
responsible nuclear power and one that showed great restraint in the Kargil incursion initiated by
Pakistan in the wake of both countries‘ testing their nuclear devices is a huge boost for lobbyists
looking to further pave the way for such cooperation.

Pakistan on the other hand has no such economic incentives to offer; on shaky grounds already,
the Pakistani economy has the added pressure of fighting insurgents on its western border as well
as within the country. It is not in a state to buy arms on the scale that her eastern neighbour can,
and if anything can only ask for supplemental assistance. The threat of religious extremism
notwithstanding, the U.S. sees it fit to enhance or supplement the army‘s counterinsurgency
armament rather than trade with the country in terms of F18s or other advanced weapons as it is
doing with India.

Compounding the issue of Pakistan‘sunattractiveness as an international arms market is

Washington‘s effort to placate Indian security issues vis-à-vis Pakistan and contain the threat of
the „Islamic bomb‘ it perceives from the „failing‘ State of Pakistan. Pakistan is unable to dispel
the negative reputation it has gained vis-à-vis its nuclear history in spite of stringent safeguards
around its nuclear programme since 2005. Realist compulsions to deal with Islamabad as the
U.S. and in fact most of the Western world along with Russia look at the Indian market with
vigour, collapse in view of an absence of such basic carrots.

The current, War on Terror‘ that Pakistan is engaged in is no longer seen as the favour it was
regarded as during the Soviet conflict; if anything, the world perceives this problem as home-
grown in Pakistan and thus Islamabad, „the culprit‘, has the responsibility of resolving it. The
pertinent issue is not that Pakistan is not receiving arms aid or sales that it is asking for from the
U.S. – the question is why it is not successful in receiving the weapons or enjoying the same
levels of nuclear/military confidence as India.

STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM

Structural-functional analysis, as one of the foremost derivatives in Political Science and a major
framework for political research originated in the biological and mechanical sciences. Within the Social
Sciences, it was first used in anthropology by anthropologists like Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown, and
later in Political Science, it was adopted by Gabriel Almond in the field of Comparative Politics.. Thus,
especially since the 1950s, a number of political scientists began to apply structural functionalism in
various problems of political analysis.

The structural functional approach is based upon the premise that it is possible to identify certain basic
functions which are which are requisite to the survival of all political systems. This approach is
fundamentally concerned with the phenomena of system maintenance and regulation. Besides the concept
of function, another important concept in structural-functional analysis is that of structures. While
functions refer to objective consequences of a pattern of action, structures refer to a pattern of
arrangements within the system, which performs the functions. So, the basic assumption of the approach
is tat all systems have structures and all these structures perform functions within the system. Therefore,
the central question which concerns the structural-functional approach is that ‗what structures fulfill what
basic functions and under what conditions in any given system?‘

According to this approach, therefore, a political system is composed of several structures (patterns of
actions and resultant institutions), which perform certain functions (objective consequences for the
system). Talcott Parsons mentions four basic functions of a political system. They are:
 Pattern Maintenance: Society must shape the behaviour of members to societal needs through
socialization, prevention of rule violation, conflict resolution etc.
 Goal Attainment: Societies cannot survive or persist without minimal goals like defence,
sustenance, procreation, etc.
 Adaptation: Societies must cope with the ever-changing circumstances and continue to fulfill
goals in spite of external changes in environment or any type of challenge.
  Integration: Congruence between various components of society and coordination of various
social structures, viz. groups, classes, institutions, etc.

In addition to these functions, societies must share two other characteristics:

 Interdependence: Which means interconnection of economics, politics, structure, culture and
personality. In other words, the various sub-sets of the system have validity only in terms of the
working of the entire system.
 Equilibrium: This means maintenance of status quo and change resistance. It is a condition where
the variables have adjusted to each other, and the system has reached a steady or homeostatic
state. For example, elites or bureaucrats resist changes to maintain their favoured position and
seek to build stability and equilibrium in to cultural framework.
Robert K. Merton has made a distinction between function and dysfunction. Structures that maintain
equilibrium are functional and those that impair or obstruct equilibrium are dysfunctional.

Gabriel Almond, who first adopted structural-functional approach in the study of Politics, started his
study by defining a political system. According to Almond, a political system is, ―that system of
interactions to be found in all independent societies, which performs the functions of integration and
adaptation (both internally and vis-à-vis other societies) by means of the employment, or threat of
employment, of more or less legitimate order maintaining or transforming the system in the society‖.
Three things clearly emerge from this definition of a political system, which can be illustrated with the
help of the following chart:

POLITICAL SYSTEM

Characteristics Properties Functions

Comprehensiveness Interdependence Boundaries Inputs Outputs

1, 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4

Universality of Universality of Universality of Multi functionality of Culturally Mixed

Political Systems Political Structures Political Functions Political structures Character of Political Systems

From the above chart, we find that a political system, according to Almond, is characterized by
comprehensiveness, interdependence, and existence of boundaries. A system is comprehensive in the
sense that it includes all the interactions- inputs as well as outputs. Interdependence means that the
various sub-sets of the system are so closely connected with each other that a change in one sub-set
produces a change in all the other sub-sets. Almond defines boundaries as points where other sub-
systems, for example, social, economic, and the cultural systems begin.

Gabriel Almond points out some common properties of political systems. Almond‘s political system is
universal in the sense that this system can be found in all independent societies. All systems have the
same type of structure and the same functions are being performed in all political systems. Political
structures may be multi-functional, performing more than one function. According to Almond, political
system, as parts of societies are characterized by a mixed culture in the sense that they combine modern
and traditional elements.

Every political system, according to Almond, must perform seven specific functions (four input functions
and three output functions) if it is to survive. The four Input functions are:
1. Political Socialization and Recruitment
2. Interest Articulation
3. Interest Aggregation
4. Political Communication

The remaining three are the Output functions. Te three output functions are:

1. Rule Making
2. Rule Application and
3. Rule Adjudication.

The input functions are performed by non-governmental sub systems of the political system, the society
and the general environment, by pressure groups, schools, political parties, independent newspapers, and
so on. On the other and, the output functions are performed by the government agencies. It is the
government and its bureaucracy that makes rules, apply them, and adjudicate between individuals and
groups on the basis of these rules.

Almond has introduced the concept of ‗inputs‘ in this approach, which implies that the political system is
not a ‗Closed‘ system whose working is determined solely by what happens within it. Rather, for
Almond, it is an ‗Open‘ system and is constantly influenced by the environments-social, cultural and
economic, and by the process and activities tat occur beyond the borders of the state, that is, international
relations. At least two of two input functions, Political Socialization and political Communication are
concerned with what we might call the reinforcement of the realm of political values.

For Almond, every political system has some structures to perform its functions. Some structures may be
more specialized than others as they perform specific functions in the system. On the other hand, a
particular structure may perform a number of functions. According to him, there must exist harmony
between function performance and the structural capacity of a system to keep the functions at the
necessary levels and to keep the society intact.

The discussion reveals that the structural-functional analysis tends to focus primarily on the static
relationship rather than on dynamics. Te approach is concerned with the problems of systemic survival,
the requirements of stable adaptation. System theorists in general are mainly interested to find out the best
possible ways for the survival of the system. However, the approach can deal with the amount of change
at the structures that a system can accommodate without seriously hindering the fulfillment of its basic
functional requisites. Robert K Merton rightly says that, ―the concept of dysfunction which applies the
concept of strains, stresses, and tensions o the structural level provides an analytic approach to the study
of dynamics and change‖. Therefore, with an ongoing system, there is considerable room for the analysis
of possible permutations, especially in structural arrangements.

The structural-functional approach has been criticized on many counts. Firstly, neither its conceptual
framework nor the range of derivable propositions for research are as specific as one would like.
Secondly, David Easton has pointed out that the structural functionalism does not provide the concepts to
deal with all kinds of system. This approach has given importance mainly to the function. As the concept
of function lacks precision, it is difficult to apply empirically. Thirdly, a stressed criticism is labeled
against structural-functional approach when it is said that the approach has serious ideological
implications and in particular tends to lead to the rationalization and/or justification of the status quo. It,
therefore, defends the existing order, biased in favour of the values of western liberal tradition, and hence,
when applied to the Third World countries, the approach miserably fails to analyze the empirical reality
that exists in these societies. Finally, the approach is status quoist and its agenda tends to support the
existing order of things. This is yet another major limitation of the structural-functional analysis.

Despite these limitations, structural-functionalism became an effective instrument at the hands of the
political scientists from certain specific kinds of researches. It is quite an attractive approach for the
comparative analysis of political systems because it provides a set of standardized categories that can be
applied successfully over widely disparate/unequal political systems. Hence, there is some merit in
structural-functional approach as a tool of political analysis.

HIERARCHY

Literally, the term 'hierarchy means the rule or control of the higher over the lower. In
7

administration, hierarchy means a graded organisation of several successive steps or levels which
are interlinked with each other. It is a method where the efforts of various individuals in an
organization are integrated with each other. In every large-scale organization, there are a few
who command and there are others who are commanded. This leads to the creation of superior-
subordinate relationship. A pyramidical type of structure is built up in an organization which
Mooney and Reiley call the 'Scalar Process . In organisation, scalar means the grading of duties
7

according to degrees of authority and corresponding responsibility, According to Mooney, this

scale or scalar chain is a universal phenomena. Wherever we find an organisation of people
related as superior and subordinate, we have the scalar principle. Various people have defined
hierarchy in different ways. L.D. White says: "Hierarchy consists of the universal application of
the superior-subordinate relationship through a number of levels of responsibility reaching from
the top to the bottom of the structure". In other words, hierarchy means control of the higher over
the lower. In administration, hierarchy means a graded organisation of several successive steps
or levels. It is also known'as the 'Scalar Principle . This is derived from the word 'Scale' which
7

means ladder. Just as there are steps ir, a ladder there are successive levels in hierarchy. Mooney
and Reiley have, therefore, called it as "The Scalar Process". Earl Latham has defined hierarchy as "an ordered
structure of inferior and superior beings in an ascending scale.

The following are some of the important features of hierarchy:

 The entire administrative function is divided into units, and sub-units.
 These units are organised in the form of a pyramid one below the other
 Authority is distributed to various levels.
 Hierarchical organisation observes the principle of 'through proper channel'.
 All commands and communications should come through proper channel. No
intermediate level can be ignored.
 A person receives orders only from one superior officer and not from anybody else. This
means the principle of unity of command is observed.
  Authority and responsibility are adequately combined. Authority without responsibility is
dangerous, while responsibility without authority is meaningless.

ADVANTAGES OF HIERARCHY
The following are some of the advantages of application of hierarchical principle in organization:
1. Large scale organizations should have a unity of purpose, which can be achieved only through
hierarchical system.
2. Hierarchy integrates various units of an organisation into an unified whole. As observed by M.P.
Sharma, "It is an instrument of organizational integration and coherence. It is to the organizational
structure what mortar or cement is to building structure".
3. It serves as a channel of communication, both upwards and downwards in an organization. It makes
clear to every official as to with whom he is to deal with.
4. It enables us to fix responsibility at each level and at each post in the organisation.
5. Every employee knows what his position and responsibility are in the organization and to whom he is
accountable.
6. The scale of 'through proper channel' created by the, principle of hierarchy ensures strict adherence to
procedure and avoids short-circuiting or ignoring of the .intermediate links.
7. Hierarchy lessens, the burden of work at the highest level and decentralises decision-making.
8. It establishes a number of subordinate levels below the top executive. Each subordinate level acts as a
centre of decision for specified matters delegated to it.
9. Every employee of.the organisation is trained to take decisions and guide his subordinates. At the
same time, it relieves the chief executive from the burden of work and promotes a sense of belonging
among the subordinates.
10. It simplifies the procedure of movement of files because of strict adherence to the rule of 'through
proper channel' and makes it easy to know where a particular file is.