So, friends in the previous lecture we were
trying to understand the institution of a state. What is a state? State is an institution
that has monopoly on use of violence; actually use of power in general, we can say power. And state according to this oxford dictionary
is not one institution; it is a set of institutions. And in these sets of institutions, they include
elected representatives, bureaucracy, judiciary and armed forces. So, whenever you say something
about Indian state; remember that you are referring to these four organs of state or
to these four different sets of institutions. I thought that when I am talking of state,
I would like to read something from Indian constitution. You need not note it down as
such; you just can note down certain points. When the objective resolution of Pandit Nehru
in the constituent assembly was approved; that was on January 22, 1947 much before the
independence of the country. The country was going to be independence, the feeling and
our statesmen were debating on what kind of state we want to develop. I am reading a long
paragraph from a book of political science or introduction to the constitution of India.
It says the constituent assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve to proclaim India
as an independent sovereign republic and to draw up for her future governance a constitution.
Not every state has a written constitution there are different traditions and like in
ancient society or primitive society; p Gilbert’s book sociology will give you more idea of
the nature of the state in primitive society, in feudal society. Even some modern states
do not have a written constitution. But in Pandit Nehru resolved that we will have a
constitution; a written constitution, to ensure what. Wherein, the territories that now comprise
British India. The territories that now form the Indian states; at that time the whole
of India was not under the crown. There were British Indian states, there were Indian states
and such other parts of India as are outside British India and the states as well as such
other territories as are willing to be constituted into the independent sovereign India shall
be a union of them all. So, first a territory was to be defined; what
is Indian state. In territory different kinds of territories were included. There were some
independent states, there were states which comprised British India and there were areas
outside both Indian states and also outside British India. And those states at the border
or inside what they had in mind, the Indian Territory. If they want to join Indian union
which will be independent sovereign India, a union of all the states; they were also
free to join. For example, Kashmir was an independent state, Sikkim was an independent
state, Bhutan was an independent state; if they wanted they could join Indian state.
Then, wherein the sad territories whether their present boundaries are with such others
as may be determined by the constituent assembly. And they are after according to the law of
the constitution shall possess and retain the status of autonomous units, together with
residuary powers and exercise all powers and functions of government and administration.
Save and accept such powers and functions as are vested in or assigned to the union;
it is a very technical job. To frame a constitution, you have to be very very technical. Perhaps,
law is much more technical and much more difficult than mathematics; because mathematics is just
an abstract language. In law you have to develop a technical language to suit the requirements
of a complex reality or as are inherent or implied in the union are resulting therefore.
And wherein all power and authority of the sovereign independent India; its constituent
parts and organs of governments are derived from the people. It will be a government of
government of the people. The constitution, the government, the state,
the Indian union will derive their power from the people of India; it will be a government
of the people. You know Abraham Lincoln’s famous statement government; of the people,
by the people, for the people. It will be a government of the people, it will not be
a government of monarchs, feudal lords or army chiefs; it will be a government of the
people. This is what was planned that in India we will have a government of the people. It
will not be a government of Sonia Gandhi or Mayawati or Mulayam Singh; it will be a government
of the people. You know people may represent their, people
may select their leaders and through leaders, they may articulate their political views;
that is a different thing. But it will not be a government of any family, any monarch,
any rulers, any bureaucrats or any other powerful group; it will be a government of the people.
You can also see to what extent the expectations of our constituent constitution makers, leaders
of constituent assembly have met. Wherein, shall we guaranteed and secured to all the
people of India. What? Justice. There will be a government of the people and it it will
ensure to all Indians justice. Social, economic and political justice; the independent sovereign
India will have justice. Justice to people; what kind of justice? Social, economic and
political. Equality of status of opportunity, equality
of both; equality of status as well as equality of opportunity and before the law and before
the law freedom of thought freedom of thought various types of freedoms. Freedom of thought
is one, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action subject to
law and public moralities, subject to law and public morality. And wherein adequate
safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas and depress and
other backward classes. Adequate safeguards for whom? For minorities, backwards and tribal
areas. Now, because if there is a comma after minorities
and then backward and tribal areas; it is not clear whether here the term backward means
or here the term minorities means, religious minorities or areas where the minorities are
found more. Or those small areas where the benefits of development, the fruits of development
have not reached and depressed and other backward classes. Wherein, shall we maintain the integrity
of territory of the republic and its sovereign rights on land, sea and air; according to
justice and the law of civilized nations. And lastly the ancient land attain its rightful
and honored place in the world and make its full and willing contribution to the promotion
of world peace and welfare of mankind. Now, this is what Jawaharlal Nehru thought about
expectations from Indian state; once an Indian state is formed.
You can see to what extent these expectations I have met. But in the context of what our
sociologist are writing, to ensure all this; you see it is a very difficult task to organize
a state, is a very difficult task. It is a very complex process. There are negative functions,
there are positive functions. This resolution I think is more about positive functions;
that this is what we will do. In independent India, it will be a government of the people.
They are not writing that we will provide food, we will provide security from onslaught
from other countries china or if there is a Pakistan at that time there was no Pakistan.
If there is a Pakistan from Pakistan, from Afghanistan; they are not writing that they
will ensure negotiated settlements between people. They are writing something more; that
more is positive. So, most of these things are positive functions
of a state. A negative function to use Gilbert’s terminology is bare minimum; what a state
is expected to do? Food, shelter, clothes, defense, law and order, minimum; but positive
is more than that. What is that more than that? What was the dream of Pundit Jawaharlal
Nehru in independent India, that it will be a government of the people. It will not be
the government of maharaja’s of different states or big landlords or some violent leaders,
powerful armed groups. It will be a government of the people. And this will be a government
for the people. It will work for promotion of interest of Indian people; whether it is
by the people or not that is debatable. Some theories, some sociologists say that
government can atmost be government of the people and for the people; welfare state for
the people, good of society. But it can never be government by the people. Because all the
people, you cannot imagine that all the people of India more than 120 millions will run the
country. The country will always be run by a small representatives of so many people.
1.20 billion People together cannot take any decision.
Decisions will always be taken by a small group of people which will represent them.
This is small group of people may truly represent them or this a small group of people may turn
out to be more self-seeking type; that is a different story. But 1.20 billion people
cannot run the government. So, we also make a difference between state, government and
regime. State is the institution; the term state in sociology is used for the institution
that has monopoly on violence or it set of institutions like judiciary, elected representative,
armed forces and bureaucrats. Government refers to the persons; people, persons who have the
power to act in accordance with certain norms, certain laws, constitutions, power. People
who actually run the government like kapil sibal is part of the government of India.
Kapil Sibal is one person who has the responsibility of making new laws, new rules according to
which 10 plus 2 qualified candidates must be tested for admission to IIT’S and NITS.
Kapil Sibal is part of government. As far as state is concerned we are all part of the
state; state is an institution and we are all part of the state. But we are not part
of the government, you are not part of the government.
You are part of Indian state but you are not part of government. And regime refers to principles
or nature or features of the rules, regulations, laws, acts in terms of which a state functions,
authoritarian, democratic. So, this these ideas behind the constitution making in India
are actually the ideas which are telling us what kind of regime it will be. It will be
government of the people, it will ensure justice; what kind of justice? Social justice. So,
friends justice. Now, justice is social, economic and political. For 100s of years, if not for
eternity; Indian society was divided into different social classes.
There was hierarchy, inequality, prejudices, discrimination, exploitation and all that
sociologists say DEO; discrimination or domination, exploitation and operation. For 100s of years
in Indian society, there were domination, exploitation and operation. Now, the Indian
state that is going to emerge after 15th august 1947 will have social justice. So, no group,
no community in Indian society will be seen as high or low and will have a just treatment.
Economic; economic justice in a feudal system or in a state system, there is injustice.
Injustice against whom? Injustice against the tenants and agricultural laborers who
is perpetuating injustice the landlords. There is injustice. In social term there was
injustice; Brahmins were superior, Thakurs were superior. Kshatriyas, Kshatriyas were
seen at the top or Brahmins were seen at the top; sometime they fought with each other.
Vaishyas were in between kind of and sudras were at the bottom. Treatment of sudras in
society was not good. We are going to develop a new state in which treatment of all social
classes will be just; nobody will be high or low. Economic; economic justice implies
that nobody will economically exploit. The term exploitation goes with economic; exploitation
is economic, discrimination is social, there will be no discrimination no exploitation.
So, those who will cultivate the land, they will have the fruits of the land. Agricultural
produce will belong not to landlords, but to those who will work for producing food.
And political there will be no powerful or powerless, there will be no oppression; nobody
will use violence against other sections of society. So, justice in 3 forms. Unless you
have political justice, if political interest of certain areas, tribal areas, remote areas
backward areas, minority areas are not ensured; there cannot be full economic justice. If
there is no representation of the northeast in governance of India, then the benefit of
economic development and industrialization urbanization will also not go to the people
of the northeast. If there is no political representation of
Jharkhand, chhattisgarh or tribal areas of madhya Pradesh, if they do not have articulate
of vocal leaders; there will be no social or economic justice either. So, we will have
justice which is social, economic and political; this is a positive function, this is not a
negative function. This is a positive function. We want to take Indian society or Indian state
in this direction in which social, economic and political rights of all the people of
India are met. Then equality of status; all are equal before the law, all are equal in
Indian society all are equal. And this equality of status, nowadays there is a debate on equality
of outcome and equality of opportunities. Nobody question the idea of equality. In his
research on education MR Yadav is struggling with this issue of equality. What is equality?
I think, if I ask you whether we should be a society of equals or unequals, all of you
will say that we should be a society of equals. But what does equality mean? Is equality,
equality of outcome? Or equality of opportunity? Or promotion of both and creating a condition
in which ultimately, we have equality of outcome as well as opportunity? Outcome means, like
in different states of India, means in different regions, in administration and also at the
central level and in armed forces; state means everything armed forces, judiciary. If in
the armed forces at one time, majority of the soldiers and officers belong to 2 or 3
communities. You know mostly at the time of independence
we had a large number of Muslims who anyway went to Pakistan. Muslim officers and Muslim
soldiers they chose to go to Pakistan. Among non-Muslims there was predominance of Sikhs
and Jats. So, there is no equality. India is such a big country. Why should in armed
forces; armed forces is part of a state. Why should in armed forces only Sikhs and JATS
should dominate? Equality means that all the sections of India; south Indians, north Indians
Brahmins, Muslims, those who decided to stay in India, lodhis, kurmis, kories, chamars,
bhangis. Everyone should be equally represented in the Indian state that will be the equality
of outcome. You want to ensure a condition, in which all
castes and communities of India and all regions of India are equally represented; that is
equality of outcome. That was the dream; to what extent that dream has come true or not
that is a different thing. But the dream was that we will have equality and somewhere in
the equality the idea was that a time will come gradually; may not immediately, not in
10 years time. That a time must come when all 1000s, more than 4000 5000 castes and
communities of India; there is not one caste or community. It is not only backward class.
If you if you have ensured a system in which upper classes or general classes and backward
classes and scheduled castes, they are all linked proportionately represented; even then
grievances remain. Yadav’s may say that as compared to Kurmis,
they are not represented. Both of them are part of say OBC. But they may say that kurmis
are over represented or in Rajasthan that problem of gujjars; gujjars are backward.
Gujjars have grievances against Jats; Jats have grievances against Vaishyas, Vaishyas
have grievances against against other or they have grievances against Jats. Equality of
outcome means that finally in all good things or in all of a state in armed forces in judiciary,
in bureaucracy in everything; all castes and communities are equally represented, that
is equality of outcome. You have a question? Working, it is working.
Sir, we can create conditions for equal opportunity; but how can we ensure that those equal, those
conditions will ensure equal outcome? Because man are inherently different from each other
and it is it can never be ensure that there will reacts similarly to same conditions.
Two different castes would react differently to the opportunity in armed forces and anything.
You see, for achieving equality of outcome maybe we begin with equality of opportunity.
You give equal chances to everyone. Equalities, equality of opportunities is something which
is not disputed by anybody today. Nobody says that you do not open schools in Chhattisgarh.
Nobody says that you should not give education to Brahmins. Nobody says that one region or
one community or one class of people be debarred from certain opportunities. But the problem
is that, equality of opportunities does not result in equality of outcome; not in the
short-run at least. And equality of opportunity may again lead to western interest. Equality
of opportunity itself has not created equality of outcome anywhere.
In socialist Russia also, they face this problem; that you have equality of opportunity. Children
of professors, children of bureaucrats, Childrens of industry managers, agricultural workers,
construction workers, casual laborers are all going to the same school; that is equality
of opportunity. But this equality of opportunity does not result in equality; because at family
level, cultural level, community level children of say professors, intellectuals, experts,
managers, will have certain advantages; which children belonging to laboring communities
do not have. So, suppose homework is given. Then in the
family of educated people where both mother and father both the parents are educated,
it is easy for a child to complete his or her homework and correctly. In the family
of those those parents where both father and mother are illiterate; there is no one to
have the children. So, this equality of opportunity does not automatically ensure equality of
outcome. So, something from time to time needs to be done to create equality of outcome also;
that is a positive function of the state. If you just confine yourself to equality of
opportunity to males and females, we have equality of opportunity of males and females.
But, where equality of outcome is not practiced, in various institutions of society you still
have a very few number of females. Very few number, number of women judges, number of
women; it is still debated what kind of positions in armed forces; in air force, in infantry,
in navy can be given to women. In bureaucrats, how many women secretaries we have, women
engineers; women in medical practices number of women is increasing but what about others?
But if you want to create equality of outcome, you say that 30 percent seats in engineering
institutions are reserved for women. And you find that next year 30 percent or more women
are there. You know it is not that women are incapable.
Equality of opportunity, because you have created equality of opportunity; both males
and females can go to schools. But the family in which females and males are socialized,
create such values in the minds of females and males; that females may not be motivated
at all or their parents may not give them so much of freedom, so much of motivation
and may not like to spent so much of money on education of girls as on education of boys.
There are, if you go to society you will find ample instances in which in a middle class
family; if they have one son and one daughter, then son is going to Delhi public school and
the daughter is going to another ordinary school of the neighborhood. Sons are playing
with guns and computers and daughters are playing with dolls. When they celebrate their
birthdays from the beginning, then girls are gifted dolls, some ornaments, clothes, decoration
items, beauty items as things. Because women are associated with family aesthetic beauty
reproduction homemaking. So, right from the beginning their psychology
is that but the moment if we depended only on equality of opportunity, then number of
girls in engineering and medical colleges in UP would still be very small. But because
we said there is 30 percent reservation for girls. So, today you find that suddenly in
all the engineering colleges of the state which are good. Number of women is almost
equal to number of men; this is what equality of outcome means.
Sometimes, a dose of equality of outcome is necessary. And the state must watch from time
to time what is happening. It is and it is not very simple; it is not that you say that
15 percent is reserved for scheduled caste. It is not that simple because scheduled caste
is not a caste; it is a list of caste which is prepared by president of India. What if
in that list only one particular caste, say Chamars get all the positions? And all other
hundreds of castes, which are also classified as scheduled caste, do not get anything. So,
state has to keep a watch on this. In south India, now a big issue of more backward, less
backward as emerged; not only in the backward classes but also in scheduled caste.
In Bihar, already they have implemented quotas for more backward, less backward. So, it is
a complicated exercise; but in principle we have to work at both the levels. We have to
create equality of opportunity and we have to work at the level of creating, equality
of outcome also. In in defense forces; so, in defense forces now after 60 years of or
more than 60 years of independent, today you find that the proportion of Sikhs and Jats
is decreasing. And proportion of other communities and regions which were not earlier represented
in armed forces is increasing. This is what and this has been ensured not
directly but indirectly by using the principle of equality of outcome. There is there are
written norms which favor regions and communities, not adequately represented in the defense
forces. So, that is equality of outcome. And before the law, before the law everybody should
be same. Then freedom of thought, what you think; you are free to think what you think,
freedom there complete freedom of thinking. State should not force you to become a communist,
state should not force you to become a sanatandharmi, state should not force you to take even side
of Indian state always. You must be a critical thinker. So, in our country you must have
learn that an independent team of journalist and activist had gone to study situation in
Kashmir. And the findings of the team are not in confirmative with the collective consciousness
of India, and not in confirmative with the thinking of the state of India. But still
what they are saying, you know importance of that has to be recognized; freedom of thought.
It is only, actually by giving freedom of thought to its people, state becomes more
effective; state can reflect on itself, can have retrospection, can learn from others,
from others ideas, experience, expression. Expression in expression you are free, you
can think and you can express yourself freely. In most time, in china there was no freedom
of thought, there was no freedom of expression, in socialist Russia, in Vietnam, in Cuba and
in the heyday of socialism in Poland, in Yugoslavia, there was no freedom of thought and freedom
of expression. In India we will have a freedom of thought
and expression and belief. Whatever you belief systems you subscribed to faith; freedom of
faith. Nobody will say that this faith is better, that faith is. You can tell people
that your faith is much more convincing, rational, secular, inclusive, progressive, scientific
than others faith. That freedom to convert people is also there that, if some religions
want that. Here one interesting thing, let me tell, at the time of independence while
certain political Muslim leaders were opposed to the idea of one sovereign independent India
combining both Hindus and Muslims and Jinnahs and the followers of Jinnahism; certainly
wanted Pakistan. The Ulema of Deoband school, which is the most powerful religious school
of Muslim in India Deoband; they did not want separation. And the reason was interesting
I was reading in quite an objective treatment of the subject the reason is that according
to Islam; it is their religious responsibility to convert the non-believers to the belief.
It is their religious responsibility. It is not, if a Muslim similarly, a Christian it
is their religious responsibility. If a Christian or a Muslim is trying to convert a Hindu to
their fold, in religious framework it is not wrong; actually it is something to be promoted.
It is like if you are a educated person and you see an uneducated person, a rural, poorer;
is it not your moral responsibility to educate that person? It is. So, in the same way in
some religions, if they have seen the light, if they have seen the truth and for them there
is one specific truth but that is the truth. If they have seen the truth, it is their moral
and religious responsibility; to show the same light to others. To tell others that
you are wrong, your magical practices, your tribal beliefs, your believes in so many Gods
and Goddess; this is all your rituals, your hierarchies, your mythological books or story
books. There is only one Allah and Muhammad is the last, prophet is the is to be seen
as the messenger of God. And your life must be lived according to the holy Quran and their
or traditions. When they know this, that this is the supreme truth; it is their responsibility.
Now, if there is a separate country of Muslims and a separate country of Hindus, then how
will Muslims fulfill their religious responsibility of converting non-muslims to Muslims fold?
So, the religious Ulema, the Deoband school, not that Deoband School was particularly patriotic.
But there were religious reasons if it is their religious responsibility of Muslims
to convert others, then division of the country on the basis of religion does not make any
sense. And if you sympathetically look at what they they said, it makes sense. It is
like putting all the Muslims in a kind of prison, where they have no opportunity at
all to convert others to Islam; so they were against.
So, in our country you have freedom to remain in your religion, you have the freedom to
convert and you also have the freedom to not believe in any religion. Everybody is free,
worship, freedom of worship, vocation, any vocation; you nobody can say that Santhosh
you will not take up the job of an engineer or of a doctor or of defense. In defense you
will not go to defense forces or you will not run a shop; you are free. You are free
to do anything; we cannot even compel you to take up a specific vocations or specific
job after specialized training like b tech. Although the country is spending so much on
you, in making you an engineer or a scientist, but there is no force.
Tomorrow you can decide to become model, you can become a film producer, a film artist,
a painter. You can have your own shop, you can become an industrialist, you can become
a religious preacher. We know of some b tech students, who have become heirs of religious
institutions subsequently. Calcutta, IIT Kanpur B tech are heading religious institutions.
After doing graduation from IIT system, people are working as ministers, as story writers,
as activists, as shop keepers, they are running shop. If they have a shop at home and they
are the only son of their parents, then some of them may like to sit at the shop.
Several years ago I went to Meson road to buy an umbrella. And while buying umbrella
I just mentioned that I am from IIT Kanpur. Then the shop keeper told; sir, I also did
my b tech from IIT Kanpur. Perhaps, he gave me some concession, because he was a student
of IIT Kanpur. I was surprised that after doing b tech from IIT Kanpur long back, why
is he running a shop. But maybe by running a shop in Meson road, he is earning much more
than a software engineer. He is a whole sale dealer in umbrellas and he supplies umbrellas
to whole of north India, at least few. So, you are free, in we thought that we will be
free to associate, form associations, free to take up action; voluntary action, developmental
action, religious action, social action subject to. But provided, they do not conflict with
the law and public morality; that is a condition. Where, some time there may be conflict. As
a matter of fact, there are since state is a set of institutions, so there are conflicts
within state also. You know, it is not that there are conflicts in civil society or people;
that it is not so simple that people are fighting and it is the states responsibility to make
them come to negotiation table or to resolve their conflicts or maintain law and order.
Within state also there are conflicts. So, if a state is a set of institutions; do not
you find that sometimes parliamentarians think in one way, judiciary thinks in another way,
bureaucrats and experts think in some third way and armed forces in some other way?
Now, recent controversies of deals in purchase in defense forces. That shows that there is
conflict of interest between armed forces and bureaucrats and politicians. This morning
I learned that high court of Andhra Pradesh turned down a political decision of government
of India to reserve 4 percent jobs in OBC quota for Muslims. Because court think that
according to Indian constitution, there is no provision for reservation on the basis
of religion. So, there is a conflict judiciary’s part of the state but judiciary thinks in
one way politicians are part of a state; they think in another way. Conflict between judiciary
and parliamentarians are quiet frequent these days. Conflicts between armed forces and politician
bureaucrats and judiciary, that is why judiciaries acquiring the activist role. There is a new
term judicial activism according to which judiciary has started developing new laws,
rules and started guiding and sometime directing the state government, central government to
take up certain actions in the field of health, education, nutrition, conflict resolution.
So, there are conflicts. And if there are conflicts that only means that state becomes
weaker. And I stop here by saying that long back one Swedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal
who wrote his famous book Asian drama. in the asian drama he used the term soft state
for Indian state; precisely for this reason, that because of this internal conflicts Indian
state will not be able to implement its…