Download All Test form here :- https://t.

me/testseries4exams

SHUBHRA RANJAN IAS STUDY PVT LTD

ONLINE PSIR ANSWER WRITING SKILL DEVELOPMENT CUM

TEST SERIES 2017
TEST 5: INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT AND NATIONALISM

ALL QUESTIONS ARE COMPULSORY

MAX MARKS: 120 MAX TIME: 1.5 hours

1) Compare Dharmashastras with Arthashastras.

2) Compare Buddhist tradition of political philosophy with Hindu

tradition.

3) Why quit India movement known as most ungandhian of all

Gandhian movements? What are the distinct features of Gandhian
mass movements.

4) Compare Kautilya with Machiavelli. Should Kautilya be called as

Indian Machiavelli?

5) “Aurobindho was a great Indian nationalist, world visionary and the

most profound prophet of spirituality.”-Comment

6) What are the chief components of Radical Humanism? What is the

relevance of Radical Humanist thought in the age of globalisation?

7) Compare Ambedkar and Gandhi’s views on social justice.

8) Compare Marxist perspective of national movement with dalit

perspective.

shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams

SHUBHRA RANJAN IAS STUDY PVT LTD

your strategic partner in IAS preparation

ONLINE PSIR ANSWER WRITING SKILL DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM AND TEST SERIES

ANSWER KEY: INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT AND

NATIONALISM

1) Compare Dharmashastras with Arthashastras.

Start by brief introduction on Hindu tradition of political thought

Hindu political thinkers, according to Bhikhu Parekh, conceptualized political life in terms
of two central concepts namely, Danda and Dharma. Dharma is that which holds a society
together and Danda meaning discipline, force, restraint, constraint or punishment.

For Hindu tradition of political thought, political life or ruling a territorially organized
community ultimately consisted in using Danda to maintain Dharma. Manusmriti and
Arthashastra are examples of Dharmashastra and Dandashastra respectively.

Give differences between Dharmashastra and Arthashastra


The two approaches differed primarily in their subject matter, one choosing to explore
political life from the standpoint of Dharma, the other from Danda. This naturally led to
differences in emphasis and orientation.

Dharmashastra refers to a systematic treatise on the general principles and detailed

content of righteous conduct or Dharma. Arthashastra or Neetishastra describes a
systematic study of political life, or a study of the best ways of using the coercive power
of Government.



Dharmashastra and Arthashastra only have difference in their focus. In Dharmashastra,
Manu discusses Varna Dharma, Rajdharma whereas in Arthashastra, the central subject
matter is statecraft, geo-politics, how to deal with corruption, among several other.



In Dharmashastra, writers concentrated on exploring the dharma of individuals and social
groups including the government. They discussed the sources of dharma as well as what
was to be done when these conflicted. The authors of Arthashastra were interested in the
organization and mechanics of danda, that is Government, the agent of danda, could be
most effectively organized.



Authors of Dharmashastra were moralistic, whereas Arthashastra were realistic.

shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams



Dharmashastra was legalistic and religious in orientation, whereas Arthashastra was
concerned with Institutions and politics which were secular in orientation.

Give similarities between Dharmashastra and Arthashastra


It would however be a mistake to draw too neat a contrast between the two strands of
Hindu political thought. Authors of Dharmashastra were not politically naïve and freely
acknowledged the political need to disregard moral principles and values under certain
circumstances, even as the Arthashastra writers acknowledged and indeed insisted on the
observance of Dharma.

It is true that Dharmashastra writers occasionally ignored the contingencies and frailities
of human affairs; however they were not nervous about using force.

Similarly, Arthashastra did not lose sight of the moral ends of Government. It would also
be wrong to suggest as is sometimes done, that the two approaches represent totally
different views of man and society.

Conclude on following lines


Neither approach was complete by itself, and this was fully appreciated by its followers.
The two together constitute the Hindu tradition of political thought and in words of
Bhikhu Parekh, both differ in degree but not in kind. Indian political tradition of thought
displays remarkable continuity.

2) Compare Buddhist tradition of political philosophy with Hindu

tradition.
Start by giving brief introduction on both traditions

According to Bhikhu Parekh, Buddhism was a rebel child of Hinduism with host of
similarities amongst plethora of differences especially in foreign and State policies. It can
be said that Hindu tradition of political thought met its most radical critique at the hands
of Buddhism.

Give differences between both


Hinduism believes in four goals of life- Dharma, Artha, Kaam, Moksha and don’t reject
materialism, whereas Buddhism initially talked about leaving worldly pleasures though
later on adapted middle path.



Hinduism believes in caste based society or Varna system with functional specialization
supporting monarchy, whereas Buddhism is egalitarian in nature and supports
republican model and emphasises on rational discourse as the way of accepting
principles.



Hinduism called State as contract between human and God, whereas Buddhism called
State as contract between humans and humans.



Hinduism glorifies war and supports acquisition of land, whereas Buddhism is against war
and supports winning of heart.

shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams



Hinduism is largely realist in approach whereas principles of Buddhism are idealist.



Hinduism talks about danda, spies, brutal punishment unlike Buddhism which believes in
peace, toleration.

Give similarities between both


The Buddhist challenge did not, however, lead to a radical reformulation of the Hindu
tradition of political thought. It continued to share such basic Hindu beliefs like life is full
of sorrow, desires are bad, philosophy of Karma, and the ruler must maintain Dharma.



Buddhist tradition of political philosophy also believed in “Chakravarti” or world monarch
where persists Dharmachakra, with the difference that power and authority of Brahmans
was merely replaced by Khastriya.

Conclude on following lines


Despite Buddhist political philosophy not involving a radical break, it did challenge some
Hindu beliefs to which Hindu writers typically responded by accepting some and ignoring
some. Buddhist ideology is still portrayed in Hindu dominated country when analyzing
some core principles of Indian foreign policy like Non-Aggression, pacific settlement of
disputes, toleration, world peace and Buddhism remains the source of Indian national
symbols.

3) Why quit India movement known as most un-gandhian of all

Gandhian movements? What are the distinct features of Gandhian
mass movements.

Start by briefly introducing Quit India Movement


Following the adoption of 8 August 1942 resolution at Gowalia tank in Bombay, Indian
masses undertook perhaps the most militant nationalist movement known as Quit India
movement. It was a call for nothing less than freedom, as Gandhi announced while
articulating his thought on this Anti-British counter-offensive.

Explain why it was the most Ungandhian movement


Unlike Non-Cooperation Movement and Civil Disobedience Movement which were
basically non-violent campaigns against the British rule in India, Quit India movement
was an ultimatum to British for final withdrawal.

Quit India Movement was a Gandhi-led Un-Gandhian campaign since he extorted to take
up arms in self-defense and resorted to armed resistance against a stronger and well
equipped aggressor.

He gave the call for “open rebellion” and gave the slogan “Do or die”, but don’t stay alive
to see nation in bondage. Gandhi proudly said that nation will live when people are ready
to die for it. Gandhi called it the last struggle of his life & assured the masses that
movement won’t be called off. Unlike previous movements, he didn’t condemn violence
of people against bigger violence of State to the extent he also permitted to take control

shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams

of police station if needed. Thus, it can be said with certainty that Quit India Movement
was the most Un-Gandhian of all Gandhian movements.

Tell about Gandhi and distinct features of mass movements


Gandhi adopted the methodology of mass Satyagraha which insistent on truth, and his
core concept was Ahimsa or non-violence. Some specific features of Gandhian mass
movements were his ability to keep them controlled and not spontaneous or knee-jerk
reaction to British order.

He himself talked about the journey as protracted struggle or long drawn in approach to
keep the momentum going. Gandhi used to begin the mass movements by engaging
critique of social order as precondition to waging of political struggle, thus making
political movements social movements as well which gave him legitimacy and large scale
support of masses.

He knew the limited capacity of the masses and used to call off the movements before
weakness of movement could reach the surface. Gandhi was great strategist and he pre-
planned the events beforehand, his strategy allowed him to choose battlefield & time.
Hence, Gandhi was pro-active & not reactive,

Conclude on following lines


Purpose of Gandhi to pursue non-violence was to bring masses to the field of national
movement, which proved the strategical abilities in Gandhi where he could take
administration by surprise and eventually won concessions from the authorities.

4) Compare Kautilya with Machiavelli. Should Kautilya be called as

Indian Machiavelli?

Give a brief introduction of Kautilya & Machiavelli


There are two names celebrated in history for an exposition of the theory of Statecraft-
Kautilya and Machiavelli. Kautilya, a teacher of political morals is a contemporary and
guide of Chandragupta Maurya and is the author of Arthashastra which deals with all the
doctrines concerned with practical life, economics, administration and politics.
Machiavelli who was the first to sense the upheaval of Renaissance is the author of
“Prince” treats mainly of statecraft and lays down conditions that are necessary for the
establishment and operation of machinery of a strong State.

Give similarities between Kautilya and Machiavelli


Kautilya and Machiavellian times have certain resemblance with respect to lawlessness,
violence and callousness to the sanctity of human life and the apathy of the public
conscience.

Both Kautilya and Machiavelli have admiration for power and efficiency in man, both
glorified the State and regarded the King as morally and legally the foundation of all
sovereign authority.

Both favour the relaxation of political canons in accordance with the change in
circumstances and suitability of political conditions.

shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams

Both have pessimistic view of the world and men are looked upon as purely selfish,
ungrateful, fickle and cowardly.

Both advise King not to trust officials, and considered statecraft is management of power.
Another common aspect was the expansionist foreign policy pursued by both.

Both propounded the use of unfair means including the use of religion for politics, and
giving primacy to nation state.

Give differences between Kautilya and Machiavelli


However, there are some differences between them when Kautilya regards King as a
fountain of Justice and preserver of Dharma. He is a confirmed believer in moral order of
universe and in divine nature of State to preserve Dharma. On the other hand, Machiavelli
consciously maintains the separation of politics from ethics and religion by giving politics
an assured and scientific basis.



Kautilya believed that King is not above Dharma whereas Machiavelli considered King as
harmless.



Kautilya’s work is much more detailed and exhaustive unlike Machiavelli whose ideas are
brief in consonance with then prevalent time and space.

Tell whether Kautilya should be called Indian Machiavelli & conclude


Nehru called Kautilya as India’s Machiavelli in his work “The Discovery of India” whereas
Max Weber went to the extent to call Kautilya as more Machiavelli than Machiavelli.

However, Kautilya gave detailed analysis of Statecraft ages before Machiavelli and with
plethora of similarities it would be an understatement to call Kautilya as Indian
Machiavelli, rather Machiavelli should be called Italian Kautilya.

5) “Aurobindo was a great Indian nationalist, world visionary and

the most profound prophet of spirituality.”-Comment

Give brief introduction of Aurobindo in relation to question asked


Aurobindo Ghosh was one of the major figures in the history of Indian Renaissance who
gave cultural and spiritual dimensions to Nationalism. Rabindranath Tagore stated that
through Aurobindo India would express her message to the world. He is also popularly
called the Prophet of Indian Nationalism who wanted to construct a synthesis of the
ancient Vedantism and modern European political philosophy. His philosophy of “Integral
Unity” and the “Concept of Freedom” represents world vision and spirituality he
perceived.

Explain the ideology of Aurobindo in respect to nationalism, world vision and

spiritualism

Aurobindo Ghosh was an Extremist who did not derive satisfaction from the strategy of
Moderates who wished to devote their energy in nationalist consolidation, rather than
antagonizing British. In his article "New lamps for old" written in "Induprakash",
Aurobindo called India a “natural nation” and claimed that emergence of India as a nation
does not depend upon foreign rule and or on Congress pandals.


shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams

He believed that India as a nation has been in existence since beginning, and Indians
need to realize the spirit of India as a nation. He denounced the claims of Moderates who
talked about PPP (Prayer, Petition, Protests) as he felt that British were not accountable to
India. Ghosh called it Political Mendicancy and supported passive resistance like Boycott,
Swadeshi which will hurt British interest directly in India. 



Ghosh believed that India has message for the world, but this msg can't spread through
chains, thus foreign rule can never be a blessing even in disguise. He felt that Spirit of
India was sleeping hitherto, but is now awakened. Universal spirit has passed through
various phases like Greeks, Roman, but now it is with Indians and no one can stop the
emergence of India because no one can stop the unfolding of universal spirit. Thus, rise
of India is good for humanity as India has such message which can protect humanity. 

In his theory called “Integral unity” which was inspired by Vedantic, Neo-Vedantic, and
French Revolution’s concept of Fraternity where Ghosh tells about presence of Bramha/
God in every human. 



Aurobindo claims that we are children of God as God expresses itself in various forms,
and behind diversity lies unity. Thus, aggregation is the nature of law and if we overlook
this law, we are living against nature. Henceforth, either we understand what nature
wants, or nature will destroy us. His spiritual world vision talks about the common
concern of humans, and hence we have to come together. 



Ghosh also talked of spirituality in his Concept of freedom where he didn’t approve
Individual freedom, rather he treated freedom to be compatible with other members of
society. He claimed that freedom without taking interest of others will be like free
running leading to chaos. Hence, Aurobindo’s idea of freedom is spiritual freedom, or
Indian concept of Swaraj, or moral freedom which is enlightenment of conscience.

Conclude on following lines


Aurobindo’s metaphysics, concepts of nationalism, freedom and spiritualized collectivism
represent the synthesis of his ideas which made him a great Indian nationalist, world
visionary and the most profound prophet of spirituality.

6) What are the chief components of Radical Humanism? What is the

relevance of Radical Humanist thought in the age of
globalisation?
Start with introduction of MN Roy and briefly define his idea

Radical Humanism or New Humanism was a philosophy of MN Roy which enunciates the
supremacy of the eternal urge of freedom where the philosophy aims at truly liberating
the man and keeping him at centre of the radical state or a state which is free from any
other identity. MN Roy’s idea of Radical Humanism emerges out of Renaissance
philosophy of Humanism which advocated individualistic approach to moral problems.

Explain Radical Humanism and its components


Radical Humanism is cosmopolitan in outlook. Like Gandhi, Aurobindo, Tagore, Roy is
also a believer in the cooperative fellowship of man. A confraternity of morally and
spiritually liberated individuals who are free from the chains of caste, religion, nation, and
creed are the fundamental requirement for the realization of a better society and freer
shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams

world. Hence, in place of nationalism, world brotherhood is needed. Roy gave three
components of Radical Humanism namely Freedom, Morality and Reason. 



Freedom is from fears or insecurities as his understanding of freedom is existentialistic,
or freedom from necessities, freedom from State, superstitions, God, etc. 



Morality as advocated by Roy is secular, as he felt that whatever man found relevant for
survival became moral value of society. Hence, morality is human creation and we can
build those norms by our own reasons which are conducive for our freedom.



Reason refers to struggle for survival at mental level which leads to result. Human beings
are diverse, but unifying aspect amongst them is reason. All humans are rational, but at
times some may appear irrational and hence, reason can be unifying force to build new
world order.

Tell the relevance of Radical Humanist thought in age of globalization


In the age of Globalization where Anthony Giddens call it compression of time and
space, and emergence of extensive relations amongst men, Radical Humanism looms
larger than ever. The cosmopolitan world which Roy talks about is in making when 21st
century watches the emergence of global NGOs, Multinational Cooperation’s, growth of
global civil society, trans-national linkages between nations, Cobweb model and
International issues becoming common arena of discussion among nations, depict the
glimpse of Roy’s Cosmopolitan world order.

Conclude on following lines


However, Roy’s Radical Humanism liberates the man spiritually and breaks national and
International barriers. Globalization has also seen coming up of inequalities, Neo-
colonialism, race to the bottom and recently seen discontent in both Western & Non-
Western world which were unlike the ideal world order Roy talks about. It emphasizes the
need of new order of Globalization based on dialogue, dignity, reason for the humanist
world order to come into existence.

7) Compare Ambedkar and Gandhi’s views on social justice.

Start the answer by explaining Social Justice and give brief introduction of
Ambedkar and Gandhi 

Justice is a architonic idea and a fundamental concept in Political Theory. Social justice is
the fair and just relation between the individual and society. It has often referred to the
process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their
due from society.

The way Bhikhu Parekh calls Buddhism as rebel child of Hinduism, Ambedkar can also be
symbolized as rebel child of Gandhi who had host of similarities and differences in their
views on Social Justice.

Give differences between their views


Ambedkar was critic of Manuvaad, and he believed Varna system led by Brahmanism
responsible for injustice prevalent in society, Gandhi was deeply religious person and
didn’t condemn Varna system for injustice, rather he justified it for functional
specialization it promoted .

shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams

Ambedkar called for annihilation of caste to the extent he talked about putting dynamite
on Vedas & Manusmriti, Gandhi didn’t believe in such arguments responsible for
prevalent injustice.

Ambedkar said that to overcome such Social injustice the necessary step is affirmative
action and henceforth proposed Hindu Code Bill apart from being major force behind Art
29, 30. Gandhi's method of social reform was relying on individual initiative and raising
the conscience of person to achieve desirable societal change.

Ambedkar felt that the only way to remove untouchability is to leave Hinduism which he
ultimately did, whereas Gandhi was opposed to such conversion.

Ambedkar consider Social unity and Social Justice as necessity for emergence of
nationalism, Gandhi’s priority was nationalism led freedom struggle along with Social
Justice.

Give similarities between their views


However, both Ambedkar and Gandhi were reformist and had common vision of dignified
life and upliftment of downtrodden.

Both wanted exploitation free society as Gandhian Ramrajya was based on oceanic circle
of power, whereas Ambedkar was based on society free from contradictions.

Both didn’t believe in violent methods for achieving social justice which they considered
as foundation stone for ideal society.

Conclude on following lines


Ambedkar was one of the biggest critic of Gandhi, and while being the Chairman of
Drafting Committee his ideas of affirmative action for Social Justice were incorporated in
Constitution of India in Article 15, 16, Directive Principles of State Policy, etc.

8) Compare Marxist perspective of national movement with Dalit

perspective?
Write briefly about National Movement with introduction of various perspectives

The idea of India has been a contested concept where debates revolve around the
description of political activity from 1857-1947 among different schools of thought.

Marxist scholars in criticism to Nationalist scholars call it bourgeois movement whereas

Dalits question the idea of India and rejected the very base of Indian national movement
which was not aimed at Dalit emancipation.

Talk about differences between both perspectives


Marxist perspective talks about Indian National Movement as a movement of elite, not
people. It was exploitative in nature on basis of caste, gender, religion which was evident
in communal clashes during movement. Dalit scholars feel that the real national
movement was one in which the subaltern groups were involved in various rebellions in
different parts of India unlike much celebrated movement led by Indian National
Congress.

shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams
 Download All Test form here :- https://t.me/testseries4exams



Marx himself called 1857 revolt as rebellion by traditional feudal class and considered
Indian National Movement in a narrow sense, whereas Dalit perspective talk about
broader dimension of the movement when Professor Gopal Guru claims that Ambedkar
widened scope for freedom of India as he didn’t want Hindu replacing one kind of slavery
with another.



Marxist scholars agreed with the nationalist school that the British rule has resulted in the
mass poverty of our people by destroying the traditional base of the Indian agriculture
and handicraft industries; they were in unison with the nationalists so far as the
destructive side of the British rule was concerned whereas Dalit scholars like Jyotiba Phule
told that British Raj was better than Peshwa Raj and wanted continuation of British rule.

Talk about similarities between both perspectives


However, there were much similarities between the perspectives as both believe that
there was no real conflict between the Indian elite and the British elite which ruled India.

In fact, they were on the same side of the battle lines drawn between the people and the
elite. Both argue that the national movement led by the Indian National Congress was
nothing but a cover under which the deal battle for power was being fought among the
elites for seeking greater political and economic control.



Marxist scholar Benedict Anderson call nation as an “invented” concept, and Ambedkar
too claimed fraternity as pre-condition to freedom which was missing in India.

Conclude on following lines


In the light of our study and on the basis of this brief survey of different approaches to
the historiography of colonialism and nationalism in India, only one conclusion becomes
inescapable: most of these approaches, even at their best, are nothing more than
sectional at least segmented in their nature. One cannot grasp the entire gamut of the
issues involved by using anyone of them singularly.

shubhraranjan.com

https://t.me/pdf4exams https://t.me/pdf4exams