SECTION A

1. Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: 10×5=50

1.(a) Explain the Philosophical approach to the study of Political theory.

The philosophical approach to political theory is fundamentally concerned with the normative and ethical dimensions of political life. It seeks to understand not just how political systems function, but how they ought to function.

At its core, this approach revolves around abstract reasoning and conceptual analysis. Philosophers of politics engage with foundational concepts such as liberty, equality, authority, rights, and justice. Philosophical political theorists use reason to explore questions such as:

       * What is a just society?

      *  Why should individuals obey the state?

      *  What is the moral basis of law and authority?

Historically, the philosophical approach has been shaped by towering figures like Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Each of these thinkers offered distinct visions of the political good. Plato envisioned a society governed by philosopher-kings, where justice was achieved through a harmonious ordering of classes. Aristotle emphasized the role of virtue and civic participation in achieving the good life.  

One of the strengths of the philosophical approach is its ability to challenge the status quo and imagine alternative futures. It encourages critical reflection on existing institutions and practices, asking whether they align with our highest ideals. This makes it particularly relevant in times of political crisis or transformation, when societies must reevaluate their foundational principles. However, the approach is not without criticism. Some argue that it is too abstract, disconnected from the messy realities of political life. Others contend that it can be overly idealistic, proposing visions of society that are difficult to implement.

Despite these critiques, the philosophical approach remains indispensable. It provides the moral compass by which political actions and institutions are judged. It reminds us that politics is not just about power and strategy, but about justice, dignity, and the common good. In a world increasingly driven by data and pragmatism, the philosophical method offers a space for reflection, imagination, and ethical clarity. It challenges us to ask not only what is possible, but what is right.

1. (b) Write a note on the relation between equality and liberty from the multi-cultural perspective.

In multicultural societies, the ideals of equality and liberty are deeply intertwined—but not always easily reconciled. While liberty emphasizes individual freedom, equality demands fairness and inclusion across diverse cultural groups. The challenge lies in ensuring that both values are upheld without allowing one to undermine the other.

Will Kymlicka’s Perspective

Will Kymlicka, a leading theorist of multicultural citizenship, argues that liberalism must evolve to accommodate cultural diversity. He critiques traditional liberalism for being “color-blind,” assuming that equal rights for all individuals are sufficient to ensure justice. However, Kymlicka contends that this approach ignores the structural disadvantages faced by minority cultures, whose members often lack access to the cultural resources that shape meaningful life choices.

• He introduces the idea of group-differentiated rights, such as self-government rights for national minorities or polyethnic rights for immigrant groups.
• For Kymlicka, liberty is meaningful only when individuals have access to their own cultural frameworks, which requires recognizing and protecting cultural differences.
• Thus, equality demands more than identical treatment—it requires context-sensitive policies that empower minority groups to flourish without being assimilated into dominant cultures.

Bhikhu Parekh’s Perspective

Bhikhu Parekh offers a complementary yet critical lens. He emphasizes that human beings are culturally embedded, and that liberalism often fails to recognize the moral significance of cultural diversity.

• Parekh argues that equality must be redefined in multicultural contexts—not as uniformity, but as equal respect for different ways of life.
• He warns against the liberal tendency to treat cultural differences as private matters, advocating instead for public recognition and dialogue between cultures.
• For Parekh, liberty must include the freedom to live according to one’s cultural values, but this liberty must be balanced with the need to uphold common civic norms that ensure mutual respect and social cohesion.

The Delicate Balance

Both thinkers highlight that in multicultural societies:

• Liberty without equality can lead to cultural domination.
• Equality without liberty can suppress individuality and cultural expression.

The solution lies in rethinking liberal principles to accommodate pluralism, where both individual rights and group identities are respected. This means crafting policies that:

• Protect minority cultures from assimilation.
• Ensure fair access to resources and representation.
• Promote intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding.

In essence, Kymlicka and Parekh remind us that true equality and liberty in multicultural societies require more than abstract ideals—they demand a commitment to justice that is both inclusive and contextually aware.

1.(c) Explain the Macpherson''s view on power.

C.B. Macpherson’s view on power is rooted in his critique of liberal democracy and capitalist society. He challenges the traditional notion of power as mere control or domination, instead proposing a more nuanced understanding that distinguishes between different types of power and their effects on human development. His view on power is centered around the concept of possessive individualism.

• • Possessive Individualism: He argued that liberal societies are built on the idea that individuals own themselves and their capacities. This leads to competition, commodification of labor, and inequality.
  • Relational Power: Power is not a fixed trait but emerges through relationships—between citizens and institutions, employers and workers, or governments and governed.
  • Developmental Power: True power should help individuals flourish. He believed democracy should empower people to realize their full human potential, not just protect property rights.
  • Extractive Power: This refers to the ability of elites or institutions to extract resources, labor, or value from others—often without reciprocal benefit. In capitalist systems, extractive power manifests in:

      *  Employers profiting disproportionately from workers’ labor

      *  Corporations exploiting natural resources or communities

      * Governments using taxation or regulation to benefit dominant classes

He sees extractive power as a distortion of democratic ideals, where power serves accumulation rather than emancipation.  

• • Critique of Capitalism: Capitalist markets concentrate extractive and possessive power, undermining democratic participation and reinforcing structural inequality.
  • Democratic Redistribution: He advocated for participatory democracy that redistributes both political and economic power—challenging extractive systems and enabling collective decision-making.
  • Ethical Use of Power: Power should be exercised to uplift others, not exploit them. Extractive power, by contrast, is ethically corrosive and socially destabilizing.

1.(d) Mention the difference between Italian and German brands of fascism.

The political upheaval in Europe following World War I gave rise to two aggressive and authoritarian ideologies—Fascism and Nazism. While movements inspired by these doctrines emerged across the continent, only Italy and Germany saw them evolve into ruling governments. Though both shared totalitarian traits, Fascism and Nazism diverged significantly in their core ideological foundations.

Arendt, in the Origins of Totalitarianism clearly articulates the difference between the Italian and German cases as far as the issue of totalitarianism is concerned. The basic difference between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is the fact that the former was totalitarian while the latter remained as a dictatorship that intended to be totalitarian. While Mussolini’s regime was famous for its pragmatic and opportunistic moves, the totalitarian methods of the Nazi state were systematic, unhesitant and aimed to be permanent.

Arendt contrasts the differences between Nazi totalitarianism and Italian dictatorship in terms of their relationships with their armies: In contrast to the Nazis and Bolsheviks, who destroyed the spirit of the army by subordinating it to the political commissars or totalitarian elite formations, the Fascists wanted a Fascist state and a Fascist army, but still an army and a state.

With respect to the Church, Italian fascism opted for compromise with the Church and Mussolini, an atheist himself, recognized the importance of the Church to secure his regime while the relationships between Nazi Party and the Church were less than smooth. Although the Christian Church accepted the Nazi rule without questioning, it is argued that not only the destruction of the Church but also the abolition of the Christian religion in any meaningful sense of the term was among the long-term aims of the Nazis.

Hannah Arendt sharply distinguished Nazi Germany from Italian Fascism in terms of the intensity, scope, and purpose of violence and terror. Arendt saw Nazi terror as rooted in a racial ideology that aimed to eliminate entire populations, especially Jews, through industrialized genocide. While Mussolini’s regime was brutal—especially toward political opponents—it did not pursue mass extermination or racial annihilation as a core policy.

These ideological, structural and historical differences between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism are hard to ignore for the social scientist.

1.(e) Explain briefly the elite theory of democracy.

The elite theory of democracy asserts that in any society, especially larger and complex ones, political power is concentrated in the hands of a small, cohesive elite group who effectively control decision-making. This elite includes not just politicians but influential members from corporations, the military, media, and policy-making institutions.  

The main theorists of elite theory are Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, C.W.Mills and Robert Michels. These three scholars, often referred to as the founders of the Italian school of elitism, formulated the classic elite theory in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

• Vilfredo Pareto emphasized the intellectual and psychological superiority of elites, distinguishing between governing and non-governing elites and introducing the concept of the "circulation of elites," where one elite group is replaced by another over time.
• Gaetano Mosca focused on the sociological aspects, describing elites as the organized minority with intellectual, moral, and material superiority over the unorganized majority (the masses). He saw elites as necessary for maintaining political order.
• Robert Michels developed the "iron law of oligarchy," arguing that all large-scale organizations, including democracies, inevitably become dominated by a small elite due to organizational necessities and leadership dynamics.
• C. Wright Mills' elite theory explains that a small interconnected group holds dominant power in society by occupying key leadership positions across three major institutions: the government, the corporate sector, and the military. 

Together, they argued that political power is always concentrated in the hands of a minority elite, and this arrangement is inevitable in any society.

Criticisms

• Undermines Democratic Ideals by dismissing the potential of genuine democratic participation.
• Overstates the unity and coherence of elites.
• Neglects Pluralism dismissing the view that power is distributed among multiple interest groups, not concentrated in a single elite.
• Ignores Social Mobility ignoring how individuals from non-elite backgrounds can rise through merit or activism.
• Lacks robust empirical evidence across different democratic contexts.

Despite criticisms, elite theory serves as a reminder that vigilance, transparency, and active civic engagement are essential to ensure that democracy remains responsive to all—not just the powerful few.

2. 

2.(a) What is the Marxist and liberal approach towards the state? On what grounds the theoretical differences between them are premised? Explain. (20)

A state is a political organization with the power to make and enforce laws within a defined territory. Different ideologies—like liberalism and Marxism—interpret the state''s role in very different ways.

Liberal View of the State

• Nature: Seen as a neutral arbiter that protects individual rights and freedoms.
• Purpose: To uphold the rule of law, ensure justice, and maintain order while limiting interference in private life.
• Role: Supports capitalism and a free-market economy, with minimal state intervention.
• Nature: Believes individuals are rational and capable of self-governance.
• Political Structure: Emphasizes constitutionalism, democracy, and pluralism.
• Future of the State: The state is considered a permanent institution necessary for societal stability.

John Locke (1632–1704), widely regarded as the father of liberalism, argued that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that the state arises from a social contract to protect these rights. He maintained that government legitimacy depends on the consent of the governed, and that people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical ruler who violates the contract.

Over time, liberal theory has evolved into classical liberalism (favouring minimal state intervention), welfare liberalism (supporting state action to ensure equality of opportunity), and neoliberalism (emphasizing free markets and individual responsibility). 

Marxist View of the State

• Nature: Viewed as an instrument of class oppression, serving the interests of the ruling bourgeoisie.
• Purpose: To maintain capitalist dominance and suppress the working class (proletariat).
• Role: Critiques capitalism as exploitative; advocates for socialism and eventual communism.
• Nature: Individuals are shaped by their class position and economic conditions.
• Political Structure: Calls for revolutionary change to dismantle capitalist structures and build a classless society.
• Future of the State: Believes the state will wither away after the establishment of communism.

The Marxist view of the state was primarily shaped by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, with later contributions from Vladimir Lenin, Ralph Miliband, Nicos Poulantzas, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, each refining or expanding the theory. Marxists see the state as the "executive committee of the capitalist class", using both coercion (police, military, legal system) and ideology (education, media) to keep the subordinate classes in check.

Neo Marxists such as instrumentalists (Ralph Miliband) emphasize direct control by capitalists, whereas structuralists (Antonio Gramsci) emphasize the state’s structural role in maintaining the capitalist system, even at the expense of individual capitalists’ immediate interests.

These philosophical foundations differentiate the Liberal and Marxist views of the state.

2.(b) Karl Popper presents a defence of the open society against its enemies. Elaborate. (15)

Karl Popper’s seminal work The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) is a powerful philosophical and political defense of liberal democracy and individual freedom against authoritarian ideologies.  Popper defines an open society as one in which:

• Individuals are free to think, speak, and criticize without fear.
• Institutions are transparent and subject to reform.
• Decisions are made through democratic processes.
• Rational debate and tolerance are central to public life.

Popper critiques three major thinkers—Plato, Hegel, and Marx—for promoting historicism, the belief that history unfolds according to predetermined laws. He argues that:

• Plato idealized a rigid, hierarchical society governed by philosopher-kings, which Popper saw as inherently authoritarian.
• Hegel glorified the state and saw history as a rational process culminating in the Prussian state, which Popper viewed as a justification for nationalism and absolutism.
• Marx envisioned a classless society through revolutionary means, but Popper warned that this could lead to totalitarianism if dissent was suppressed in pursuit of utopia.

Popper’s defense of the open society rests on several key philosophical principles:

• Critical Rationalism: All ideas must be open to scrutiny and falsification. No authority is beyond question.
• Fallibilism: Humans are inherently fallible, so political systems must allow for correction and reform.
• Incremental Change: Social progress should be gradual and piecemeal, not revolutionary or utopian.
• Democratic Institutions: These provide mechanisms for peaceful change and protect against tyranny.

Popper’s ideas remain influential in debates about democracy, authoritarianism, and the role of reason in politics. His work is a reminder that:

• Freedom and openness require constant vigilance.
• Intellectual dogma can be as dangerous as political oppression.
• Democracy thrives on dissent, debate, and diversity of thought.

Popper's defence of the open society is hence a rejection of totalitarian ideologies and historicism in favor of liberal democracy, individual freedom, critical rationalism, and social reform through democratic processes, safeguarding the society against its enemies who seek to impose dogmatic, absolute truths and suppress freedom.

2.(c) Explain how Rawls used the liberal and egalitarian perspective to develop his concept of distributive justice. (15)

John Rawls developed his concept of distributive justice combining liberal ideals of individual liberty with egalitarian principles of equality, forming what he called "justice as fairness." His theory aims to reconcile these often-competing values within a well-ordered society.

Liberal Perspective

• Rooted in political liberalism, Rawls upholds equal basic rights and liberties for all individuals. These include political freedoms compatible with everyone having fair access.
• He rejects utilitarianism's focus on aggregate welfare, arguing instead that justice must protect individual rights regardless of majority preferences.
• Inspired by Kantian philosophy, Rawls emphasizes rational individuals making autonomous choices under a veil of ignorance — where no one knows their own social or economic status — ensuring impartiality in choosing justice principles.

Egalitarian Perspective

• Rawls introduces two key principles of justice:
1. Equal Basic Liberties: Everyone has the same fundamental rights.
2. Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
• Equality is further specified by the principle of fair equality of opportunity, ensuring that positions and offices are open to all under conditions of fair competition.
• The difference principle imposes a constraint on inequality—allowing disparities only if they improve the situation of those worst off, promoting distributive fairness.

Integration in Distributive Justice

• Rawls models society as a system of cooperation where individuals benefit from social cooperation, but conflicts arise in distributing those benefits fairly.
• The hypothetical Original Position with the veil of ignorance allows rational agents to select principles balancing freedom and equality without bias.
• His approach ensures that justice is not about absolute equality but about fair arrangements that protect liberty while mandating social structures to aid the least advantaged.

In essence, Rawls' concept of distributive justice is a sophisticated blend of liberal respect for individual freedom and egalitarian concern for social equality, aiming to fairly distribute benefits and burdens in society through democratic institutions and fair opportunities for all.

3. 

3.(a) Provide a comparative analysis of behavioural and institutional approach to the study of political theory. (20)

The behavioral and institutional approaches represent two distinct paradigms for studying political theory, each with unique focuses and methodologies.

The institutional approach looks at formal political structures like legislatures, executives, courts, and constitutions. It emphasizes the rules, procedures, and organizational frameworks that create stability and govern political interactions. It is largely descriptive and normative, focusing on how institutions shape political behavior and governance. It tends to analyze politics through legal and organizational lenses, often ignoring informal political dynamics.

In contrast, the behavioral approach centers on the individuals and groups within political systems. It studies political behavior empirically, using surveys, observations, and statistical methods to analyze attitudes, voting patterns, decision-making, and social interactions in politics. Behavioralism seeks regularities in behavior, adopts a scientific, value-neutral stance, and aims to explain and predict political phenomena rather than prescribe norms.

While the institutional approach laid the groundwork for understanding political structures, the behavioural approach brought a much-needed empirical and analytical lens to political inquiry. Today, scholars often integrate both approaches to gain a more holistic understanding of political phenomena.

3.(b) "State does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress." – Mahatma Gandhi. Elucidate. (15)

3.(c) Explain how the slogan ''the personal is political'' addresses the issue of women''s oppression and discrimination. (15)

4. 

4.(a) The foundational base of western democracy has been shaped by Locke''s ideas of constitutionalism, freedom and property. Elucidate.(20)
4.(b) Hannah Arendt analysed a few categories of vita activa. Explain.(15)
4.(c) Do you think that legitimacy acquired by consent or manufactured by indoctrination is an essential element in maintenance of political rule? Justify your answer with relevant examples. (15)

SECTION B

5. Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: 10×5=50

5.(a) Write a note on the Dalit perspective of Indian National Movement.
5.(b) Explain briefly the role of Peasant Movements after 1857 and before independence.
5.(c) Land reforms programmes led to some constitutional amendments. Comment.
5.(d) Delineate the key factors that have shaped the evolving political landscape in Jammu and Kashmir post 2019.
5.(e) How far has the National Human Rights Commission been successful in achieving its objectives? Comment.

6. 

6.(a) Parliamentary committees are indispensable to the legislative process. It provides for the opportunity for cross-pollination between the two chambers of the Parliament. Discuss. (20)
6.(b) Examine the constitutional provisions and nature of advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India. Evaluate your answer with relevant examples. (15)
6.(c) The recent developments in Indian Politics have not eroded the true spirit of federalism in India. Critically examine this statement with the help of appropriate examples. (15)

7. 

7.(a) Enunciate the impediments to women''s participation in local governance in the process of political decentralisation. (20)
7.(b) Caste remains a vital axis for political mobilisation in India. How would the caste census address the aspirations of people? Discuss. (15)
7.(c) There is a debate on the procedure for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to the Election Commission of India. Analyse its various aspects. (15)

8. 

8.(a) The decision to conduct Population Census-2027 has reopened the debate on delimitation in India. Discuss its various aspects. (20)
8.(b) With reference to Nehruvian perspective of planning and economic development, examine how the early phase of economic planning in India has laid the foundation of modern India''s economic growth. (15)
8.(c) Illustrate with examples how political parties in India have played a crucial role in drawing the historically disadvantaged groups into the mainstream political system. (15)