pol science notes

Political Science (Paper 1)


Western Political Thoughts

1. Aristotle

2. Plato

3. Machiavelli

4. Montesquieu

5. Thomas Hobbes

6. John Locke

7. Rousseau

8. Jeremy Bentham

9. John Stuart Mill

10. Karl Marx

Muslim Political Thoughts

1. Al-Farabi

2. Al-Mawardi

3. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi

4. Al-Ghazali

5. Ibn-e-Khaldoon

6. Allama Muhammad Iqbal

of 111


Western Political Thought---Aristotle

Aristotle

“Aristotle was the unimpeachable authority on every science and art known to his day.” (Maxey)

Aristotle was born in 384 BC. His father was Physician. He studied in Plato’s Academy for about 17 years. He was attached to Plato’s Academy for two reasons:

1. It was the cradle of education in Greece for advanced studies.

2. He was so much influenced by Plato’ teaching.

He served as tutor of Alexander the Great in 343 BC and kept his school in the Lyceum for 12 years. After the death of Alexander the Great, the Athenians revolted and prosecuted the accused persons of whom Aristotle was one of the many. He was charged for impiety but he fled to avoid punishment.

During the middle Ages, he was simply considered “the Philosopher”. The recovery of his manuscripts in the thirteenth century marks a turning point in the history of philosophy. According to Dunning, “the capital significance of Aristotle in the history of political theories lies in the fact that he gave to politics the character of an independent science.”

He is founder of science of logic. His monumental treatise “Politics” is the most valuable works on Political Science. The “Politics” is a chief work on the science and art of Government giving full justification for existing of the institution like the state, slavery and family is calculated to suggest the remedies for the ill of the body-politic of the city-state. Though it is generally said that “Politics” is an unfinished treatise and often obscure but the half understood words of Aristotle have become laws of thoughts to other ages.

Zeller says, “Politics of Aristotle is the richest treasure that has come down to us from antiquity, it is the greatest contribution to the field of political science that we possess.”

Aristotle as Father of Political Science

The title of fatherhood of Political Science bestowed upon Aristotle is not without justification. He was brought up in the order of medicine as his father was a physician of the king of Macedonia. Since his childhood he got every opportunity and encouragement to develop a scientific bent of mind. Instead of turning towards literature like his great master Plato, he built the terminology of science and philosophy.

of 111


In the words of Renan, “Socrates gave philosophy to mankind and Aristotle gave science to it.”

Aristotle gives us definite and clear-cut dogmas, instead of groping in illusions and imaginations. He does not believe in abstract notions of justice and virtue, but has a concrete approach. He discarded utopian philosophy of Plato and advocated logical and scientific theories based upon realism. Aristotle supported the principle of unity through diversity. He was of the view that reality lay in the concrete manifestation of things. He separated ethics from politics.

We can say that Aristotle laid the foundation of a real political science by his keen and practical political approach and systematic treatment of the subject. He may be called the “Scientist of Politics” because of his empirical study. He collected his data with care and minuteness, clarifies and defines it and draws logical conclusions which deserve nothing but admiration and praise.

Aristotle’s Views on Origin of State

“Man is a political animal, destined by nature for state life.”

“State exists for the sake of good life and not for the sake of life only.” (Aristotle)

Aristotle was of the view that the origin of the state is present in the inherent desire of man to satisfy his economic needs and racial instincts. The family is formed by male and female on the one hand and master and slave on the other hand. Then they work for achievement of their desires. They live together and form a such family in household which has its moral and social unity and value.

Aristotle said, “Family is the association established by nature for the supply of man’s everyday wants. But when several families are united and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily need, then come into existence the village. When several villages are united in a single community, perfect and large enough to be quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life and continuing in existence for the sake of good life.”

Three elements are essential to build the state on perfect lines i.e., fellowship, practical organization and justice. A man without state is either a beast or a God. According to Aristotle, “he who by nature and not be mere accident is without a state is either above humanity or below it, he is tribe-less, lawless and heartless one.”

The family is natural and inborn instinct, similarly the state is also natural for individuals. Baker said, “The state is the natural home of the fully grown and natural man. It is an institution for the moral perfection of man to which his whole nature moves.”

of 111


Aristotle was of the view that state is a “Political Koimonia”, an association which represents a functional unity of varied and reciprocal parts made by the pursuit of a common aim in which their nature, their habits and their training lead them all to join. Maclwain said, “The state is a kind of Koimonia which is a supreme over all others, and embraces them all.” State is an association of human being and the highest form of association existing for the sake of perfect and healthier life.

Functions of the State

1. The state is not merely an association of associations but it is a highest natural association for pursuits of spiritual class of common life of virtue.

2. The state is based on the element of justice

3. It also aims at the highest good of the community for its proper realization of demands and needs in it.

4. The state functions to ensure a perfect and self-sufficing life of all its components members.

5. The state also ensures to fulfill all the natural needs of its members and to provide opportunities to the individuals for the attainment of moral, intellectual and physical excellence.

6. According to Aristotle, “Man is essentially good and the function of the state is to develop his good faculties into a habit of good actions.”

Rule of Law

Aristotle believed in natural laws but not the natural rights. The absence of law is the negation of good laws and this meant lack of constitutional laws. Law was superior to the Government because it checked the latter's irregularities. Rule by law was better than personal rule because law had as impersonal quality which the rules lacked.

Sabine paid tribute to Aristotle in these words, “the supremacy of law is accepted by Aristotle as a mark of a good state and not merely as an unfortunate necessity.”

Justice means that every citizen in the state should abide by the dictates of law and fulfill its moral obligation towards community members. According to Aristotle there should be two kind of justice:

1. Distributive Justice

It is mainly concerned with voluntary commercial transaction like sale, hire, furnishing of security, acquisition of property etc.

of 111


2. Corrective Justice

It deals with proper allocation to each person according to his capacity and worth.

Aristotle emphasis that reward and honors should not be offered to the virtuous few but to others as who collectively contribute in the welfare of the state and should be proportionately rewarded.

Theory of Revolution

Decay and disturbance in political life brought crucial changes in the Governments of the city-state in Greece, made Aristotle to contemplate deeply and to stress the causes of the Revolution and its remedies. Aristotle’s theory is divided into two parts:

1. First part is a practical manual of conduct advising democrats, aristocrats, monarchs and oligarchs and even tyrants as how to keep themselves in power.

2. Second part is a treatise on the philosophical basis of the good and stable governments.

What is Revolution?

To Aristotle, if any change occurs in the existing system or constitution of the state, it means revolution. For example, if in the state the constitution has changed from monarchy to democracy, it is a revolution. Aristotle was of the view that if the constitution remains the same, but the ruling party has been transferred from one man to another, it is also a revolution.

General Causes of Revolution:

1. The main feature of revolution is to be the craving of men for equality. Equality has two characters-absolute and proportional. The proletariat is passionate to secure absolute equality for the availability of the same rights that are possessed by few. The few struggle for proportional equality for perpetual upgrading superiority in power and privilege.

2. Strong desire for justice becomes another feature of revolution. Aristotle was of the view that men turn to revolution when they think they have not got their dues.

Particular Causes of Revolution:

1. Desire for gain and profit.

2. Universal desire for honor and prestige

3. The possession of sovereign power by an individual or group so as to create fear and apprehension in the minds of the subject

of 111


4. Undue priority and prominence of individuals caused great stir in the heart of the subdued people

5. Disproportionate increase of power and wealth in any part of the state

6. Elections intrigues and moral degradation kept up in the selection of some people

7. Carelessness shown in granting public offices to disloyal citizens and undue favoritism shown to the individuals

8. Too much power concentrated in one man or class of men for political gains

9. Dissimilarity of different elements in the state

10. The rivalries of people of different races in the state

11. Dynastic quarrels and conflicts

12. Free immigration of outside races with different notions of justice and law

Revolutions in Particular kind of State:

1. Democracy

In democracies, revolutions are led by the dogmatic policies of demagogues in attacking the rich.

2. Tyranny or Oligarchy

In oligarchies, revolutions take place due to two reasons:

A) Oppressive or Totalitarian rule

B) Rivalry among the ruling dictators

3. Aristocracy

In aristocracies, revolution held to the policy of narrowing down the circle of the Government. Aristocracy tends to become oliogarchy, through the undue encroachment of the richer classes polity to become democracy, through the undue aspiration of the poorer class. According to Dunning “Stability can be maintained only by proportionate equality and by giving to each his own.” Aristotle was of the view that democracy is more secure and stable than oligarchy.

Remedies for Revolution:

1. Abundant political power should not be concentrated in the hands of one man or one class of

of 111


men.

2. The various classes in the state without any discrimination of color and creed should be treated alike and with proper consideration

3. Honors and rewards should be distributed as fairly as possible only to deserving ones because inequalities of offices and honors drive men to revolt.

4. Political offices should be within reach of every individual who is able of performing his functions best.

5. The Government should be so vigilantly organized that the political office-holders cannot make money out of their offices. Bribes and other kinds of illegal gratification should be made quite impossible to accept.

6. A Government would gain popularity and political stability if it so arranges things that the internal details of the administration, particularly the administration of public finances is open to public scrutiny.

7. Proper education should be imparted to the citizens in the spirit of constitution.

8. Political stability and internal solidarity can be gained by maintaining proportionate equality.

9. The habit of obedience and submission to law should be instilled. Lawlessness and anarchy should not be allowed to creep in even in small and trifling matter.

10. In oligarchy and aristocracy, the inferior class must be well treated and the principles of democratic equality must be followed among the privileged classes. In democracy, the poor and the rich should be encouraged to take part in the state administration which does not affect the sovereign power.

Aristotle also suggested various methods in making oligarchies and tyrannies-stable which are to be followed by a tyrant.

a) A tyrant must employ spies particularly females to trace out disloyal persons to gallows the concerned.

b) He should follow an aggressive policy abroad

c) He should always warn people about constant fear of invasion from outside

d) He should keep the people busy and never allow them to remain in vertigo and lethargy.

e) He must extend enthusiasm in religion

of 111


f) He should punish the guilty so that crimes must be ended for the peaceful order in the state.

g) He should increase the material well-being of the citizens.

h) He should perish the intellectual life of the citizens to perish revolutionary tendencies.

i) He should adorn his city and must work for its glory

j) He must have respect for the good.

Aristotle put the security of the state above everything else. He even permitted interference in the privacy of individual’s life when necessary in the interests of the state. According to Aristotle “A revolution constitutes more a political than a legal change. It had the effect of reversing ethical, social and economic standard."

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---Plato

Plato

Introduction

Plato was born in Athens in 427 BC when the civilization of ancient Greece was at the zenith of glory and eminence. He belonged to royal blood of aristocracy, from his mother’s side he was related to Solan, the law giver. He made efforts to discover the eternal principles of human conduct i-e justice, temperance and courage which alone imbibed the happiness to the individual and stability to the states. In 399 BC, the turning point came in the life of Plato, the defeat of Athens by Sparta made him to despise democracy.

He wandered abroad for twelve years in Persia, Egypt, Africa, Italy and Sicily in the hours of disillusionment, absorbing wisdom from every source and tasting every creedal dogma. Then he returned to Athens and opened an academy. He wrote about 36 treaties all in the form of dialogues. His academy became the best school in Athens.

Work of Plato

“The Republic” is the most important and authentic work of Plato. It was about political philosophy, ethics, education and metaphysics.

Other works of Plato include: “The Politicus”, “The Apology”, “The Meno”, “The Protagoras”, “The Gorgias”, and “The Critias”.

The Republic and Plato

“The true romance of the Republic is the romance of free intelligence, unbound by custom, untrained indeed by human stupidity and self will, able to direct the forces, even of customs and stupidity themselves along the road to a national life.” (Prof. Sabine)

The Republic is an excellent product of Plato’s maturity. It is a major contribution to political philosophy, education, economics, moral aspects of life and metaphysics.

Plato’s Republic known as “Respublica” in Latin is translated from Greek word “Politeia or Polity” which means a political constitution in general. It is an achievement of comprehension, perfection and universality of thought. It presents a picture not of any existing state in Greek but of an ideal state in which weakness of the existing states were to be avoided.

of 111


Rousseau said, “The Republic is not a mere work upon politics but the finest treatise on education that ever was written.”

Main feature of the Republic is the virtue of knowledge. Plato was of the view that different classes and individuals had different capacities for the attainment of virtues. The labor class showed the least capacity. Philosophers were the best entitled to rule the state because of their superiority in virtue. Plato considered justice to be the supreme virtue and his ideal state be dwelt with it. We can say that the Republic is his master piece. Plato’s Republic is the crowning achievement of art, science and philosophy.

According to Baker, “The mainspring of the Republic is Plato’s aversion to contemporary Capitalism and his great desire to substitute a new scheme of Socialism.”

Criticism

The Republic contains a good deal of criticism on contemporary institutions, opinions and practices. The Republic represents a strong protest against the teachings of Sophists and the existing social and political corruption.

Plato stresses that state should not be an assembly of corrupt and selfish individuals but be a communion of souls united for the pursuit of justice and truth and also for the welfare of the people.

Plato’s Ideal State

“Until philosophers are kings or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and the power of philosophy and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, cities will never rest from their evils.” (Plato)

The Republic of Plato is interpreted as Utopia to end all Utopias, not because it is a romance, but because he constructed an ideal state in it. He compares the construction of an ideal state with an act of an artist who sketches an ideal picture without concerning himself with the fact whether individual characteristic features of imaginative picture are to be found anywhere or not? In the same way, Plato never thought of the possibility of the institutions of his ideal state, being capable of ever becoming a reality. He never thought of the impracticability of this idea concerning his ideal state.

Plato built his state on the analogy of an individual organism. He believed that the virtues of an individual and of the state were identical. He was of the view that an individual presented almost the same features and qualities on a smaller scale as society on a bigger scale.

Features of an Ideal State of 111


1. Rule of Philosophy

Plato was of the view that in an ideal state the philosopher-ruler should be prominent. He should has a broaden vision of unity of knowledge. Philosopher-kings are immune from the provisions of law and public opinion.

2. No unqualified absolutism

Though, neither, there is any restraint of law nor of public opinion over philosopher-rulers but that is not an unqualified absolutism. It is not all despotism, because rule of philosophy is not free from the basic articles of the constitution.

3. Control over the education system

Philosopher ruler should control the education system in an ideal state.

4. Justice in ideal state

Justice is the main feature of Plato’s Republic and it is also present in his ideal state. Justice is the bond which binds every member of society together. It forms a harmonious union of individuals.

5. Censorship of art and literature

In ideal state, there should be a complete censorship of art and literature. It is necessary so that nothing immoral things might falls into the hands of the young individuals.

6. System of Communism

Plato was of the view that guardian class should live under the system of communism of property and family. The rulers and soldiers do not possess any property of their own.

7. Equality among men and women

According to Plato, equal opportunities should be given to both men and women for their economic, social, intellectual and political uplift. We can say that Plato was the first feminist of his time.

8. Principle of Functional Specialization

Plato was of the view that due to multiple wants, an individual could not fulfill all his desires by himself alone due to lack of capacity. Thus co-operation among individuals should be necessary to satisfy their mutual desires. Some people are specialized in performing some certain tasks.

of 111


Criticism

1. Plato built his ideal state on the analogy of individual and this identification leads to confusion. He failed to distinguish ethics from politics. His ideal state is based not merely on analogy but almost identification between the individual and the state, which is quite wrong.

2. Plato fails to condemn the institution of slavery and regard it as fundamental evil.

3. Plato’s system of communism of women and temporary marriage is detestable and unethical.

4. Plato is a moralist rather than a political idealist. His assumption that the state should control the entire lives of its citizens is false and contrary to human liberty.

5. By the system of functional specialization, Plato tends to dwarf the personality of the individual. There is no possibility of any full development of human personality in his ideal state.

6. Plato completely ignores the lower class in his ideal state which forms the great bulk of population. Such negligence may divide the society into two hostile groups.

__________________

of 111


Comparison between Plato and Aristotle

Aristotle, the favorite and most brilliant pupil of Plato, is more conscious of his differences than of the points of agreement with him. The differences which these giants of philosophy were not the outcome of any grudge or ill-will, but reflected their own way of solving the existing problems of their state.

Similarities

1. Both upheld slavery and justified its continuation in true spirit of Greek ideals. Each regarded slaves as an indispensable part of the community for the manual performance and overall development progress of the state.

2. Both despised foreigners and regarded races other than Greeks fit for subjection and bondage and as mentally inferior to the Greeks.

3.Both condemned democracy and wanted to replace it with some sort of constitutional or ideal polity while Plato echoed in condemning democracy, as “What could have been more ridiculous than this mob-led, passion-ridden democracy, this government by a debating society, a mobocracy.” On the other hand Aristotle was of the view that “the people are not capable of self-government.”

4. Both wanted to impose limitations on citizenship. Both taught that all manual labor should be done by slaves or non-citizens.

5. Both opposed the views of Sophists that the state came into birth for the sake of life and continues for the sake of good life. It is this conviction which makes Aristotle a true Platonist.

6. Aristotle’s “Political” is no less a manual for statesman than the “Republic” of Plato.

Differences

1. While Plato draws conclusion through the use of allusion and analogy, Aristotle strikes at the very point with definite and clear-cut dogmas and doctrine.

2. While Plato believes in the abstract notions of justice, virtue and idea. Aristotle judges the speculative fundamentals on the basis of exact comparison and deduces a thought presentable and acceptable even in modern civilization.

3. Where Plato is visionary, imaginative and utopian, Aristotle is logical, realist and scientific in his approach of propounding theories.

4. If Plato believes in the doctrine that the reality of a material thing lies in its idea not in its of 111


form. Aristotle believes that reality in the concrete manifestation of a thing, and not in its supposed inherent idea.

5. Plato believed in the phenomenon of unity through uniformity. On the other hand Aristotle was of the view that unity could be achieved through diversity in universe and men.

6. Plato inseparably mixed ethics and politics. He subordinated political theories to ethical considerations. In Aristotle it was quite the reverse. Ethics and politics were not only separated, but the former was made to sub serve the later.

7. Plato was the propounder of new philosophy; Aristotle was a systemiser of already existing knowledge, and made freshly streamlining and fascinating by his powerful influential and charming style for practical adoption for state functions.

“Plato seeks a superman who will create a state as good as ought to be. Aristotle seeks a super science will create a state as good as can be. Thus, all who believe in new worlds for old are disciples of Plato, all who believe in old worlds made new by the toilsome use of science are disciples of Aristotle.” (Maxey)

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---Machiavelli

Machiavelli

“Machiavelli had been represented as an utter cynic, an impassioned patriot, an ardent nationalist, a political Jesuit, a convinced democrat and an unscrupulous seeker after the favor of depots.” (Sabine)

“In Machiavelli we find the frankest and the most brutal analysis of the selfishness, audacity, cunning, deception, treachery, malevolence, cynicism, hatred and lust that were necessary for a prince.” (H. Thomas)

Machiavelli, the hated beloved prophet of secularism, had one of the enigmas of modern history, whom Allama Iqbal has characterized as the “Sharp Agent of Devil” was born in Florence in 1469. Little is known about his early education. However he was known as a well-read fellow in Italian and Latin classics. The Florence was ruled by the Medici family in 1494, the Medicis were expelled from the city and Florence became a republic. In the same year, Machiavelli first joined public life as a chancery clerk. In 1498, Machiavelli became second chancellor and secretary of the Council of Ten, a body which had responsibility for war and interior affairs. He held that post for fourteen years.

He was strong, vigorous and intelligent man. On many occasions, his services were required as diplomatic observer in royal courts abroad. He was very much impressed by Cesare Borgia in Romagna. Cesare Borgia became the model for “The Prince”, Machiavelli’s best known work. In 1506, Machiavelli persuaded the counsel to adopt his plan for formation of a citizen army. But he failed in his plans because Medicis re-established their control over Florence. The Medici exiled him and forbid his presence in Florence. Soon afterward Machiavelli having been wrongly accused of implication in the Boscoli conspiracy against the Medici was imprisoned and tortured. He eventually freed and permitted to return to his family.

Machiavelli, as a true Florentine was naturally shocked to see the political upheaval and social decay in his beloved country and he determined to save her from all intrigues, disorders and petty wars. He denounced all the church doctrines and held the Popes responsible for the plight state of affairs. He tirelessly struggled for the attainment of glory and magnificence of Rome by consolidating all scattered forces. He enunciated the philosophy of art of Governments for effective discipline and stability in the state. He advocated strongly for using the harsher methods and oppressive means for the stability of the state. He firmly believed that “fear is the domineering weapon for a Prince for complete obedience and is mightier than love.”

of 111


Moral Indifference of Machiavelli

The reasons of Machiavelli’s moral indifferences are following:

1. Machiavelli does not believe in any ethical dogmas or in any divine law because of intentional segregation of politics from religion.

2. In Machiavelli’s philosophy, moral judgments are wholly subordinate to the existence of political and temporal existence and welfare.

3. Machiavelli calculated that the institution of Papacy brought decline and destruction to the glory of Rome. He wanted to practice pagan virtues of cunningness, duplicity and knavery for achieving successful goals.

4. He did not at all deny the excellence of moral virtues, but he refused to accept them essential to the political stability. He pleads that the religion must be skillfully exploited as a useful weapon for achieving the annexing designs by the sovereign.

5. Machiavelli stands courageously for the preservation of his state. He says that there must be no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, glorious or shameful; on the contrary, everything must be disregarded.

6. He imparts priority to the state and puts it above morality and religion, because it is the highest form of social organization and the most essential of all institutions for the protection and promotion of human welfare.

7. Machiavelli’s advocacy of unreligious and his indifference to morality have become so much disrupted that even his name has become a by-word for fraud, force and dishonesty. He wrote primarily for the exaltation of the state.

In modern world, some of the States Heads acted as “Prince of Machiavelli” by freezing all channels of human progress and liberty and also by reducing the citizens to that of animals and slaves. The Prince and the Discourses are still modern theories and are being practiced in many secular countries of modern age.

Machiavelli and State Diplomacy

Machiavelli wrote his most important work “Prince” and dedicated it to de Medici, the prince of Florence. “Prince” of Machiavelli is neither an academic treatise nor a book on political science. It is a memorandum on the art of Government and of State diplomacy. It gives an awe-inspiring technique for successful ruler-ship and as such is a guide to the rulers and kings of his time and of succeeding times, about the best means of maintaining their power.

of 111


The whole argument of Prince is based upon the premise directly derived from Aristotelian philosophy that the state is the highest form of human association and that consideration for the state welfare must be given priority and preference than the well-being of the individuals. These premises led to the conclusion that it was Caesar and not God to be worshipped. Here Machiavelli personified Caesar with a state and almost identifies the state with the ruler. Caesar must make himself worthy of this worship by a cruel, ruthless and successful seizure of power. A prince must possess the qualities of wisdom, egoism, selfishness and brutalities for the attainment of his motives. A prince must consider his friend and neighbors his ardent foes and does not repose any confidence in them. Machiavelli was of the views that:

“Virtue brings ruin, while vice brings security and prosperity.”

“Cruelty is better than mercy.”

“A wise ruler ought not to keep faith when such observance may be turned against him.”

The main point of Machiavelli’s state diplomacy is following:

1. Impart priority to your own interests. The strong must impose intimidatory laws upon the weak to arrest their rebelliousness.

2. Honor to nobody but to yourself. He who aspires to acquire mastery can afford to have no rivals.

3. Do evil but pretend to do well. Machiavelli was of the view that to be good is harmful but to pose to be good is useful diabolic attitude. Let mercy be on your tongue and evil in your heart.

4. The Prince should have no regard for the rights of others, especially foreigners. He should impose heavy tax upon them to the point of robbing them.

5. A Prince should not be prodigal with the money of his own people, but he should be very liberal and generous with the money plundered from other countries through aggression and other mean resources.

6. A Prince must discard all the canons of leniency and decency.

7. A Prince, in order to crush his competitors, must turn into a murderer and a looter.

8. The Prince must kill his enemies and if necessary, his friends. He must remain vigilant and alert from his relations so that he may not be deposed, exiled and murdered.

9. Use force and duplicity rather than benign ness in dealing with other people. It is better to be creator of horrors than to be maintainer of love and affection. When you over-power your

of 111


enemy, root out the entire roots of his family, otherwise some of his relatives will become vindictive to take revenge for the wrong you have inflicted.

10. Concentrate all your efforts on war. In the Machiavellian state, all regular channels of human activities are barred and all roads lead to war.

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---Montesquieu

Montesquieu

“Of all French political philosophers in the eighteenth century (other than Rousseau) the most important was Montesquieu. Of them all he had perhaps the clearest conception of the complexities of a social philosophy, and yet he too was guilty of extreme over simplification.” (Sabine)

Montesquieu was born in 1689 at Chateau de la Bordeaux in a noble aristocratic family. His father was an eminent French lawyer. At the age of twenty seven he became president of Parliament of Bordeaux, the most important of parliaments in France except that of Paris. For a long period of twelve years he continued as chief magistrate at Bordeaux, but he was not satisfied with the job because he was an extensive reader of literature and history and had deep sympathetic ties with the intellectual movements of his days. At last he left presidency and moved to Paris. In 1728 he visited Austria, Hungary, Venice, Rome, Switzerland, Holland and lastly England where he remained for above two years. During his tour, he came across the leading politicians and political thinkers in England and he was deeply impressed by the English conception of liberty and by the English system of Government.

After his return he settled at La Brede and kept himself busy with the task of writing of political philosophy. At that time France although under absolute control of King Louis XIV, yet was more fertile for growth of political theory but Frenchmen were not satisfied with the political situation, as were their fellows across the channel.

Important works of Montesquieu are:

1. The Persian Letter: He published these letters in 1721. it embodied a brilliant satire on the existing political, religious and social institutions in France.

2. Reflections and the causes of the Greatness and Decline of the Romans. This book was published in 1734.

3. The Spirit of Law published in 1748. This book won a great fame and immortality for Montesquieu because it came out after fourteen year unremitting labor and he made it a masterpiece for all ages.

of 111


Montesquieu’s doctrine of Separation of Powers

Montesquieu expounds his theory of separation of powers to set forth the governmental organization in order to safeguard the political liberty. He believed that the separation of powers among the different organs of the government is the best safeguard against tyranny. He pleads that each power must be exercised by a separate organ and a system of checks and balances should thus be established for solidarity and harmony of the state.

The theory of separation of powers among Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government was best realized in the British Constitution. He came to realize that for maintaining liberty, the separation of powers was absolutely essential. Montesquieu did not rely upon observation. Locke and Harrington had taught him what to expect and for the rest he adopted the myth which was current among the English themselves. Bolingbroke said, “It is by this mixture of monarchial, aristocratically and democratically power blended together in one system and by these three estates balancing one another, that our free constitution of Government has been preserved so long inviolate.”

According to Montesquieu there are three kinds of power:

1. By virtue of the legislative power, the prince or magistrate exerts temporary or permanent laws and amends or abrogates those laws, which are contrary to the will of the subject.

2. By virtue of the executive powers, he makes peace or war, sends or receives Ambassadors, establish the public security and provide protection against invasions.

3. By virtue of the judiciary powers, he is vested with the powers to punish criminals and also to safeguard the life and property of the individuals.

When the executive and legislative are united in the same person, there can be no liberty because apprehensions may arise. If the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and the executive then again there will be no liberty. When it is combined with the legislative, the existence and liberty of people would be exposed to arbitrary rule. When it is combined with executive organ, then there will be violence and oppression in the capacity of a mortal God.

It is quite obvious from all above cited discussion, that the separation of powers among the three organs of governments fully ensures liberty and freedom, by imposing healthy checks on the despotism of the government bureaucrats. Montesquieu was of the view that liberty is an indispensable fundamental for human progress and glory. Everyone is born to enjoy it without any distinction of color, creed and religion.

of 111


Criticism:

1. Montesquieu’s study of English constitution is not very correct until this day; there is no full separation of powers between different governmental agencies. There the House of Lords is a legislative as well as a judicial body. The Lord Chancellor partakes of all the three functions of government.

2. If all the branches are made separate and independent of each other, each branch will endeavor to safeguard its interests and possibly may jeopardize other’s interest.

3. Perfect separate power in the functions of the government is impossible.

4. Mill was of the view “the separation of powers will result in a clash between the three different organs of the government because each one will take interest only in its own powers.”

In spite of all inconsistencies in the theory of separation of powers, it too wielded a considerable influence in Pakistan, France and America. Montesquieu is placed in the first rank of those distinguished thinkers who in the eighteenth century, held high standard of idealism in all that pertains to liberty.

Montesquieu’s views on Forms of Government

The classification of government of Montesquieu is base partly on the number of those who hold political power and partly on the manner in which that power is exercised. He gives more importance to the principle on which government is based than to its nature. He assigned a particular basic principle to every form of government. The principle of democracy was virtue, of an aristocracy virtue-cum-moderation, of monarchy honor while that of despotism was fear. He enunciated the dangers attending each form of government if it lost its basic principle.

Montesquieu forms the government into three types:

1) Republic:

Montesquieu was of the view “A republican government is that in which the body or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power.” To him, when in a republic, the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power it is called democracy. Sovereignty rests with the people in democracy. In Republics, there can be no exercise of sovereignty but by the votes of the people and these votes express their own will.

2) Monarchies:

Montesquieu remarks that monarchial government is that in which a single person governs the

of 111


state by fixed and established laws. He was of the view that the most intermediate power is that of nobility. This in some measure seems to be essential to a monarchy, whose fundamental maxim is no nobility no monarch, but there may be despotic process.

3) Despotism:

A despotic government is that in which a single person directs all functions of the government with his own capricious will, without any law and without fixed rules. His own words become laws of the land and complete subordination to these laws a expedient.

Each of the form is associated with its peculiar principle:

a) Democracy is based upon political virtue

b) Aristocracy is based upon moderation

c) Monarchy is based upon honor

d) Despotism is based upon fear and oppression

Relation between Forms of Government and religion & Size of State:

Montesquieu was of the view that certain religions had a definite affinity for certain types of governments. Islam goes well with Democratic Republican form of government, wherein fundamentals of religion i-e., equality, fraternity and freedom are deeply inculcated and practiced for the security of mankind and glory of the state. Roman Catholicism is closely affiliated with monarchial form of government with arbitrary rule and Protestantism even in this modern age is deeply attached with despotism and cruel expansionism.

Republican form of government is possible only in a state of small size; monarchy suited the moderate-sized state while a big country or an empire must have despotic government. Real democracy is possible only ion small city-state. France of Montesquieu’s time was too large for a republic form of government, Monarchy would suit her best. Montesquieu declared monarchy, a worst form of government and he unlike Machiavelli discarded the doctrine of aggrandizement and expansion.

Criticism:

1. It is quite wrong to assume, as Montesquieu does, that democracy and aristocracy are sub-types of republican form.

of 111


2. It is a quite unfair to place despotic government at par with monarchial and republican forms. Despotic state is not at all state because it is established by the absence of established law, and hence it is a lawless state, which should not be included in the plan at all.

3.Montesquieu’s scheme creates distinction between the republican and monarchic form based upon the number of persons who possess the supreme power, the distinction between the monarchic and despotic types depends upon the way in which the power of governments are to be exercised.

Montesquieu as the Aristotle of 18th Century

1. Montesquieu follows the inductive and historical methods of Aristotle and like him, takes keen interest in the practical political activities.

2. Like Aristotle, Montesquieu too pays his attention on the influence of physical environment on the life of man and social institutions.

3. Montesquieu steps into the shoes of Aristotle, when he recognizes basic types of government i-e, republican, monarchial and despotic.

4. Montesquieu closely follows Aristotle when he says that the fundamental types of political constitutions are fixed once and for all but they are different to some extent under the impact of the local conditions.

5.Montesquieu’s observation that the law of a society gives to its unique and particular character, has its parallel in Aristotle’s statement that the constitution of a state determines the very life and character of its people, if there occurs a change in the constitution, the state itself becomes altogether a different state.

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---Thomas Hobbes

“Hobbes was in fact the first of the great modern philosophers who attempted to bring political theory into intimate relations with a thoroughly modern system of thought, and he stroke to make this system broad enough to account on scientific principles, for all the facts of nature, including human behavior both in its individual and social aspects.” (Sabine)

Thomas Hobbes was born near Malmesbury in 1588. He was the victim of broken home. His father, the Vicar of Westport, deserted his wife and children when Hobbes was still a boy. Hobbes received his early education in Wiltshire, a place in Malmesbury. At the age of fifteen years, he joined Oxford. He got the degree of graduation at the age of nineteen. His soul remained insatiate with the University education and found it worthless.

On leaving Oxford, he became tutor to the heir of William Cavendish who later on became Earl of Devonshire. His contact with royal family brought him into contact with most important personalities of the period. He left England during the horrors of civil war and was forced to take refuge in France, where he joined the supporters of royal absolutism. He lived for about twenty years in France whose autocratic Government appealed him considerably.

It was this period in which he wrote his master piece of work “The Leviathan”, published in 1651. He attacked the ancient institution of Papacy and also won disfavor from royalists. It was an important work of Hobbes which brought him immortal fame in the history of Western political thought.

Hobbes built up a systematic philosophy of state, taking his stand neither on tradition nor on theology but on his study of human nature. It was the crucial period when upholders of constitutional rule were fiercely fighting for the annihilation of the supporters of Divine Right of Kings. Hobbes saw the miserable condition of his beloved country and ardently advocated for the maintenance of authority and order, and he constructed a system of strong and responsible sovereign Government on the basis of the then very popular doctrine of social contract. Hobbes was, thus, as much a creature of his times as Machiavelli was. However he found a link between Renaissance and the Restoration.

Hobbes’s Conception of State of Nature

Hobbes was of the view, “The only basis of human action is a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ends only in death. By nature man is selfish and egoistical. Every one is

of 111


striving for the gratification of his appetites and these appetites are different from individual to individual because of physical constitution, education and experience."

Hobbes’s man lived originally in state of nature without the benefits of Government. All human actions were regulated by two things:

1. The instinct of self-preservation

2. Individual egoism

According to Hobbes, the state of nature was “a state of war of all against all in which the chief virtue of mankind were force and fraud.” There was no Government of civil laws to maintain peace and order, but a Government of fear, danger and coercion.

Hobbes said, “During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war, as is of every man against every man. In such condition there is no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation, no use of commodities that may be imported by seas, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.”

Logical Conclusions:

1. Hobbes was of the view that there was no distinction between right and wrong in the state of nature. Only force, deceitfulness and intimidation were the order of the day. The only slogan echoed “Kill when you can, usurp what you can.”

2. There can be no private property in the state of nature for possession of a thing depends upon the power of upholding it.

According to Hobbes, man undoubtedly wanted peace and tranquility; but his fear of others, his anxiety to retain what is already had and his never ending desire for self aggrandizement on the basis of ‘mine and mine’ led him to perennial conflict and anarchy in the state. Man is the state of nature becomes the slave and tool of impulses and passions. Later on man realized that peace had definitely more utility than constant was and fear of violent death brought man’s passions into line with his reasons.

Man could live in harmony and peace with one another either through fear of punishment or desire for profit. And this purpose could only be achieved by establishing a strong and stable

of 111


Government capable of inspiring awe and fear by using harsh and arbitrary methods who disobey its laws and of giving attractive rewards to those who do conform.

Hobbes and Theory of Sovereignty

Hobbes’s sovereign was presented as a Mortal God vested with absolute and unchallenged power to rule over his subjects arbitrarily. He was the smasher of the regular channels of democracy, a way of life. Hobbes’s sovereign suffocated all the social and cultural communication between the people bringing about a reign of oppression and harshness.

Hobbes said, “By this authority, given him every particularly man in the wealth, he has the use of so much power and strength conferred upon him, that the terror thereof, he is enable to form the wills of them all to peace at home and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consists the essence of the Commonwealth which is one person, of which acts a multitude, by mutual covenants one with another have made themselves, every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall thinker expedient, for their peace and common defense.”

Features of Sovereignty

1. The sovereign is absolute and all powerful. His powers to frame laws of the land are not restricted by any human agency.

2. He is the singular law-making authority.

3. No condition, explicit or implicit, can be imposed on the sovereign, for his power is unlimited.

4. Subjects have no authority to call any explanation from the sovereign for his misdeeds. They have no right to threaten, to punish him, to banish or depose him.

5. The sovereign is the fountain of justice and honor.

6. The sovereign has full power to declare war against any country or nation whenever he likes.

7. Sovereignty is indivisible; inalienable and unpunishable.

8. The sovereign formulates laws regarding property and taxation etc, and he has full rights to allow or disallow freedom of speech to his subject.

9. The sovereign has to protect his people from internal disruption and external aggression for of 111


the preservation of peace and glory of the state.

10. If the sovereign ignores the pact, he can do so, because he is no party to the contract.

Types of Sovereignty

According to Hobbes the difference of commonwealths consist in the difference of the sovereign or the person representative of all and every one of the multitude and it is manifest, there can be put three kinds of commonwealth:

1. If the representative is one man, the commonwealth will be known as Monarchy.

2. If the representative is composed of an assembly, the state will be called a democracy.

3. When the representative is an assembly, but only a part of it, then it is called aristocracy.

Hobbes ardently favors monarchical form of Government. There must be an important monarch to serve the end for which the state is established. But a monarch without absolute power will utterly be failed for the attainment of his ideals. That is why; Hobbes is ranked as one of the great champions of absolute sovereignty.

Hobbes gives a perfect and most satisfactory theory of sovereignty which is all powerful authority within the state. It is absolute, unlimited, non-transferable and irrevocable. Hobbes excelled Machiavelli’s Prince, an evil genius in exalting political authority. Machiavelli had made politics independent of religion but Hobbes set politics above religion and ethics. The powers vested in sovereignty must be absolute, unlimited and all powerful.

Criticism

The political theory of Thomas Hobbes has been bitterly criticized on different grounds ever since this day.

1. The whole conception of social contract and an organized society resulting from it is unhistorical. There are no examples in history when Hobbes’s men gathered together and signed a contract for the formation of a civil society.

2. Hobbes portrays a dismal picture of the state of nature, which is far from satisfactory. He paints a darker side and completely ignores a brighter side of human nature. His picture reflects

of 111


the evils of his man. He declares man selfish, solitary and brutish. But human nature has two essential aspects, good and bad. He always speaks of the badness of human nature.

3. Hobbes was of the view that the state of nature is a state of war, the war of all against all, in which the cardinal virtues are force and fraud. How could such a man go against his own nature and suddenly enter a “state not of war, but of peace, not of force and fraud but of right and justice.”

4. Hobbes says that there were no laws in the state of nature. This is baseless.

5. Hobbes’s sovereign appears to be the representative of the people, who follows public opinion and looks after public welfare. This is the only one aspect in which Hobbes has recognized the limitations of his Leviathan.

6. Hobbes did not foresee the distinction between the Government and the state. While the Government of a state might be replaced with another because of its corruption or inefficiency, the state as a reality remains intact and does not sink into lawless condition.

7. Hobbes appears to be a mixture of anarchy and absolutism. The only remedy to control of good behavior of men was the coercive power of the sovereign.

8. The Hobbesian system condemns the state for purely negative functions. It is sole function in the preservation of life and maintenance of order.

9. The civil society created by Hobbes is not much of a society. It is like a flock of cattle driven by the omnipotent Leviathan who sums up in himself the life of all and who is a universal regulator of thoughts and actions of all.

Hobbes was a materialist and rationalist to the core of his heart. His political philosophy indicated the absolute sovereignty of whatever Government happened to be in power. He bade people render unto Caesar and unto God whatever Caesar commanded. His state absorbed the will of all its members in matters secular and spiritual and it was wrong to will or act against it.

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---John Locke

John Locke

“Successful revolutions are stimulating to those who believe in them. Locke is the most fortunate of all philosophers for, he completed his work in theoretical philosophy just at the moment when the Government of his country fell into the hands of men who shared his political opinions. His political doctrine is embedded in the American Constitution.” (Bertrand Russel)

John Locke was born at Wrington in north Somersetshire in 1632. His father was an attorney and land-owner of modest means. He got his early education at home and later on he was admitted to Westminster School. In 1652, he was sent to Oxford for higher education. At that time he was only twenty-two and entered Christ Church College (Oxford). His university career was not very shining because the narrow discipline of the place dulled his enthusiasm for formal studies. In 1660, he got the degree of Master of Arts. After taking the M.A. degree, Locke was appointed as a tutor in Greek.

Locke did not like teaching profession and he started medicine. He was greatly influenced by Descartes and became physician. Later on he became the confidential Secretary of Lord Shaftsbury, the founder of the Whig Dynasty. He went over to the Parliamentary side and was later on made a field marshal in the rebel forces. When Charles II became king, he was made Earl of Shaftsbury in 1672.

In 1682, Shaftsbury was charged with the crime of conspiracy. He was arrested and tried for treason. He was, however, acquitted but was compelled to leave England. Locke also facing his persecution fled with him to Holland and remained there until the bloodless Revolution. After the glorious revolution of 1688, he came under the liberalizing influences that were beginning to be felt in England and he devoted his entire intellectual faculties towards literary work and to numerous controversies arising out of his works.

Sabine attributes John Locke in these words, “his sincerity, his profound moral convictions, his genuine belief in liberty in human rights, and in the dignity of human nature united with his moderation and good sense, made him the ideal spokesman of the middle-class revolution.”

Locke’s father, a renowned attorney of his time exerted a considerable influence in making him zealous advocate of liberty, equality and democracy. Locke completely discarded the Hobbes’s conception of man who depicted as utterly selfish, irrational, solitary and brutish. He portrayed his men in the state of nature fully possessed a sense of sociability bringing all men in togetherness of mutual benefit and for the progress of civil society. He advocated for the

of 111


elimination of the coerciveness and intimidation over the subject for peaceful progress of the state.

Bases of his Philosophy

Sensationalism:

Locke was of the view that all knowledge and beliefs come through our senses and experiences. There is nothing in mind except what was first in the sense.

Utilitarianism:

He is one of the great pleader of utilitarianism. His conception is quite apparent from his contention that “happiness and misery are the two great springs of human action.” He was of the view that morality is pleasure and pleasure is only conformity to universal law.

Optimistic Conception of Human Nature:

Locke believes in the inherent goodness of human beings. He says that man is a rational, sensible and social creature. He feels love, sympathy and tenderness towards his fellow-beings and is capable of being actuated by altruistic motives. He wants to live in peace and harmony with others.

Rejection of Absolute Monarchy based on Divinity and Heredity:

Locke refuted emphatically the hereditary principle in kingship advocated most fervently by Filmer in his Patriarcha and upheld by the Anglican Church. Filmer contended that political power is derived from the authority of father over his children and that regal authority is subjection of children to parents, and since the actual monarchs are the heirs of Adam, therefore they can demand from the citizens unflinching loyalty. Locke points out the injustice of primogeniture (the principle by which property descends to the eldest son) which is unavoidable if inheritance is to be the basis of monarchy. Further, Adam can have only one heir, but no one knows who he is. And if the true heir could be discovered, would all existing monarchs put their crowns at his feet. Moreover, in case of this discovery all kings except, at most one, would be usurpers and would have no right to demand the obedience of their de facto subjects.

Locke’s View on Natural Rights of Man

Locke appears to be a true democrat when he says that the establishment of a commonwealth stands for the complete security of natural rights of men. Natural rights of citizens are:

1. Right to life

of 111


2. Right to property

3. Right to liberty

“Most distinctive contribution of Locke to political theory is the doctrine of natural rights.” (Dunning)

Locke was of the view that the right of property is a most important because all other natural rights are analogous to the right of private property. He further maintained that the right to private property existed in the state of nature under the operation of natural law. Locke thought of natural rights as things which man brings with him from birth. Society exists to protect them; they can be regulated only to the extent that is necessary to give them effective protection.

“The life, liberty and estate of one person can be limited only to make effective the equality valid claims of another person to the same rights.” (Sabine)

According to Locke, “God, who has given the world to men in common, has also given reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience. The earth and all that is therein, is given to men for support and comfort of their being and all the fruits it naturally produces and beasts it feeds, belongs to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature, and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state. Whatsoever he removes out of the state that nature has provided and left it in, he ahs mixed his labor with and joined to it something that is his own and thereby makes it his own property.”

Locke’s Conception of Popular Sovereignty

Locke is regarded as the champion of people’s rights and a harbinger of their sacred and fundamental liberties. His social contract did not create the irresponsible, cruel and absolutist “Leviathan” of Hobbes, but reserved the sovereign rights to the final judge of all actions, the community. The ultimate supreme power is not vested in the scepter of king; but it remains in the hands of the people.

Locke did not advance the idea of legal, absolute and indivisible sovereignty. The very idea of it was discarded by him because Machiavellian and Hobbesian conception of sovereignty brings about a reign of terror for the people who would loudly whisper for freedom and equality. He initiated the conception of popular sovereignty, which has been firmly accepted, a best way of rule by the succeeding thinkers and the whole world own him too much, because real and practical democracy was strongly enunciated.

of 111


Locke stood for a Government which should be subject to a number of limitations. It cannot rule with coercion and intimidation and tax them without their will. A government which violated its limitations is not worthy of obedience. The state is created for certain conveniences and it must justify itself by creating those conveniences.

The basic rights of the individual life, liberty and property are to be protected rather than restricted by the state. The king has neither the divine authority nor any moral justification to over load the subject. All men are equal in the eye of Almighty God and their basic rights must not be violated under the civil laws of the state.

Locke’s Government created by the unanimous consent of the majority should have freedom of speech, of election and of religious worship and in order that it may be prevented from becoming too autocratic and arbitrary. This democratic government should be run by a system of checks and balances. In other words, the government should be divided into three main organs i-e, legislature, executive and judiciary. And of these three, the legislature should be supreme, as is evidently available in the modern constitutions.

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau

“Rousseau was the father of the romantic movement, the imitator of system of thought which infer non-human fact from human emotions and the inventor of the political philosophy of pseudo-democratic dictatorship as opposed to traditional absolute monarchs. Hitler was the outcome of Rousseau.” (Bertrand Russel)

Rousseau was born on June 28, 1772 at Geneva of parents of French Protestant ancestry, in a middle class family. His father, Isaac, was a skilled watchmaker, but abandoned this profession to become a dancing master. Rousseau left school at the age of 12, learnt various crafts but adopted none. He also worked as an apprentice under a cruel engraver. He filled with a wonder lust that was never to be satisfied. Restless, impulsive, unstable he embraced the career of a vagabond as others might enter upon a profession and thereafter for twenty years he led the life of a vagabond wandering in different places. In 1742, he gravely mediated to lead a regulated life, went to Paris and tried his luck at different schemes, the opera, the theatre but his efforts ended in fiasco. Then he opened a small hotel.

The year of 1749 was a turning point in his life, chance brought Rousseau fame and immortality. The Academy of Dijon announced a prize for the best essay on the subject “Has the progress of sciences and arts contributed to corrupt and purify morals”. He thought a strong plea that progresses of sciences and arts had tended to degrade human morality. Rousseau depicted in the essay, an early state of society in which all men lived under conditions of simplicity and innocence, and traced the purging evils of society emanated from the artificialities introduced by civilization. He won the prize. Hearn Shaw remarked, “it created a great sensation in the artificial society of the Age of Reason. It was the first ramble of the Revolution.”

The publication of his book “Social Contract” aroused the indignation of the French Government, which ordered his arrest. He escaped to Geneva, where the Democratic Council burned his book and threatened his life. He took refuge in Germany, where an angry mob almost strangulated him. He fled to England where only one man, Hume, took him into his affection. By this time, however, Rousseau’s suffering had greatly perturbed his brain and he was tormented by a prosecution mania. He suspected that Hume was plotting to poison him. He thought that “Everyone hurts me because of my love for mankind.” Finally his fear of being murdered drove him to commit suicide.

Hearn Shaw said, “Rousseau led a life of fugitive for sixteen years and he drove through a period

of 111


of deepening gloom, failing health, broken spirit, haunting terrors, paralyzing illusions and accumulating despair.”

Rousseau’s State of Nature

“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Many a one believes himself the master of others, and yet he is greater slave than they. How has this change come about? I do not know. What can render it legitimate? I believe that I can settle this question.” (Rousseau)

Man is born free only in the sense that freedom is his inborn right; it is the necessary condition for the development of the various potentialities of human nature. We can say that he is born for freedom that he ought to be free. The second part of the first sentence that he is everywhere in chains imply that customs and conventions of society and state regulations imposer upon him certain artificial and unnecessary restraints which arrest the development of his personality.

Rousseau, a philosopher of the heart rather than of the head, presented his State of Nature to be an earthly paradise though he himself confessed that the conception of the State of Nature was quite hypothetical. As Rousseau says, “A state which exists no longer, perhaps never existed, probably never will exist and of which none the less it is necessary to have just idea in order to judge well our present state.” He always maintained that the natural state was also better than the social state. For, in it, the natural man, or the noble savage, lived a solitary, happy and carefree life of the brute was independent, contented and self-sufficing.

In short, Rousseau’s man was a non-social being unknown to good or evil or the coming death. Thus the noble savage was in the state of paradise, everyone being equal to the other. Man’s life in the state of nature was regulated not by reason but by the feelings of self-preservation and hatred towards incalculable massacre and incredible violence. According to Rousseau, “primitive man was near animal than man; he lived an isolated and solitary life having no ties and obligations. He was guided by two sentiments self-interest and pity, and having no oral obligation with other men he could not be good or bad, virtuous or vicious. He led a solitary life completely devoid of language and wandered about the primeval forests begetting his offspring by the way, hunting for his food, and concerned only with the satisfaction of physical needs. In a word, the natural man was neither happy nor unhappy.”

But with the appearance of fixed homes, family and property, the knell of human equality was sounded. But even this primitive society was tolerable. The least subjects to revolutions, the best for man. Only when the serpent entered into the society in the form of private property, was the life of man changed from prosperity to adversity.

of 111


Rousseau was of the view “the first man having enclosed a piece of land he thought himself of saying this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him the real founder of social inequality and injustice.” The institution of private property created a sense of jealousy and struggle, converted usurpation into an acknowledged right and led to the promotion of society. He became subject to violence, bloodshed, crimes against property and person and all the evils of society and civilization including slavery. Thus the life of man became pitiable, miserable and intolerable. As Rousseau says, “the problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate and in which each while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone and remain as free as before.”

Rousseau’s General Will

“The development of the theory of the general will in the Social Contract was involved in paradoxes, partly because of cloudiness of Rousseau’s ideas but partly; it seems, because he had a rhetorician’s liking for paradox. Manifestly, in view of his criticism of the natural man, he ought to have avoided the notion of contract altogether as both meaningless and misleading.” (Sabine)

The will of each individual merged into a General Will, which is the cardinal pillar in the Rousseau’s philosophy, has aroused keen controversy and has been subjected to severe criticism. It has been remarked by Bertrand Russell that the doctrines enshrined in his Social Contract, “though they pay lip service to democracy, tend to the justification of the totalitarian state.”

Dr. McDoughall defines General Will as “The General Will is conceived as coming to be when every individual in a group or society has a conception or idea of the group as a whole and identifies his good with the good of that whole.”

Rousseau explains that by the free act of those who enter into an agreement, all their powers and rights vested in the community and their respective wills are superseded by the General Will. He was of the view that man possesses two kinds of wills:

1. Actual Will:

It is related to the will of the individuals. It is irrational will of man. This Will makes self-confined and self centered.

2. Real Will:

It is rational will of the individual. It always aims at general welfare of the society. It leads to eternal decision imparting self-satisfaction to the individual. It is based upon reason and

of 111


rationality.

Rousseau’s whole arguments depended upon the fact that a community of citizens is unique with its members, they neither make it nor have rights against it.

Rousseau said, “The social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before. Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the General Will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”

Rousseau clearly distinguishes the General Will from will of the majority and the minority. The General Will may or may not coincide with any of these Wills; it may sometimes be coincident with the Will of an individual.

Characteristics of the General Will:

1. Unity:

It is not self-contradictory. It is indivisible, because if it were divided it would not remain General Will but would become Sectional Will.

2. Unlimited:

It is unlimited. Rousseau assigns absolute powers to his sovereign by following the Hobbes’s line of action.

3. Inalienable:

The General Will and sovereignty are inalienable and undetectable.

4. Un-representable:

The General Will cannot be represented. That is why Rousseau laid the foundation of direct democracy. The General Will can conveniently be realized in a small city state where the population can assemble and pass laws for their interest. It does not admit of representative democracy.

W. T. Jones appreciated Rousseau’s theory in these words, “The notion of the General Will is not only the most central concept of Rousseau’s theory, it is also the most original, the most interesting, and historically the most important contribution which he made to political theory.”

of 111


Criticism:

1. Rousseau’s theory of General Will is incomplete and vague.

2. It is in actual practice difficult to distinguish the General Will from the Will of all. The General Will is not the unanimous Will of the whole people because that might be the Will of all. General Will has its own merits and demerits.

3. Rousseau’s belief that an individual has his actual and real Wills at the same time is quite wrong. An individual’s Will is a corporate thing, one complete whole, incapable of any division.

4. He was of the view that the General Will neglects the force of moral law which dictates to anyone as to what is just and unjust.

5. There arises a sort of conflict between the common interest and the interest of the individual. The General Will assigns a very high place to the state and the individual will have to sacrifices his interest over the interest of the state.

6. Rousseau’s concept of General Will is rather abstract and narrow. In actual practice, it is nothing if it does not mean the Will of the majority.

7. It pre-supposes common interests, which is difficult to define or determine. These interests grow out of organic relations between members of a community and are hardly possible in the multinational states of today with their conflicting ideals and interests.

8. This theory is not applicable to the bigger state in population and territory, and does not admit of representative government.

9. It is rarely and for a short time that general will is actually realized. Self-consciousness can exist only at periods of great crisis in the life of a nation, when the whole society is in danger.

10. Where we are determined to decide what are the visible manifestation of this Will, Rousseau leaves us in the realm of darkness. He stresses that General Will always tends to the public advantage and that is infallible. But it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are equally correct.

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham

“Bentham was the first among modern philosophers to place women upon a political equality with men. In Plato’s Republic this equality was to be fully recognized. But after Plato it was completely forgotten for over two thousand years.” (H. Thomas)

Introduction:

Jeremy Bentham was the intellectual leader and the real founder of English utilitarianism; whose deep interest in public affairs covered the period from the American Revolution to the Reform Bill of 1832. He was born in a rich lawyer’s family in 1748 in London. From the very childhood, Bentham was scholarly and pedantic. He learnt Latin when he was only three years old. He also learnt Greek and French and later on he devoted to the study of Jurisprudence and legal philosophy. He received the degree of graduation at the age of fifteen from Queen’s College Oxford. He had an instinctive interest in science and a distinctive talent for introspective psychology. From his youth he showed a passionate devotion to social welfare, identifying himself in imagination and determining to apply to the social sciences the methods that were being worked out in the natural science.

In 1763 Bentham entered Lincoln’s Inn to begin the study which was to be his life-long pursuit. In 1772 after having studied law, he entered the bar for practice. As he grew older, his interests widened and his opinions became more subversive. His supreme mission was to reconstruct the entire legal system on healthier lines.

At the time of his death, he was at the zenith of fame and glory because of his unparalleled contribution in the subject of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. After his death, Doyle says, “He was venerated by a group of disciples, as a Patriarch, a spiritual Leader, almost a God with James Mill as his St. Paul.”

Jeremy Bentham was a prolific writer and he collected works comprised of twenty-two volumes. His writings cover a wide range of interest including ethics, theology, psychology, logic, economics, penology etc. he wrote following most important books:

1. Fragments of Government

2. A Defence of Usury

of 111


3. Discourse on Civil and Penal Legislation

4. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

5. A Treatise on Judicial Evidence

6. A Theory of Punishments and Rewards

7. Essay on Political Tactics

of 111


Importance of Bentham in

History of Political Thought

Bentham holds a distinctive place in the history of political thought. He was more a legal reformer and jurist rather than a political philosopher. He had nothing original in his political doctrine and also he did not create new ideas. Bentham was the first to establish the utilitarian school of thought. Maxey said, “Here was a doctrine to rock the foundations of all accredited political theory. With ruthless logic he brushed aside the ancient varieties of both radical and conservative thought; had erased all distinction in principle between free and despotic politics: had put it down that divine, feudal right, historical right, natural right and constitutional right equally and like were rubbish and nonsense. There was no right to rule and no right to be free, there was only the fact of power and the circumstances which made that power a fact.”

Influence of Utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism, a British gift to political philosophy, represented a British reaction against the value generalities about mutual rights and social contract and the mystic idealism of the German political thinkers. It brought political theory back from the abstractions of the Age of Reform to the level of concrete realities. The utilitarian philosophers particularly Bentham and Austin rendered valuable service to political thought. They were the thinkers who viewed society not from the ivory tower of isolation but from close participation. They were not idealistic, they were not utopian, they were not visionary and their philosophy was not transcendental. They built a new theory of government according to which government was based not on contract but on the habit of obedience of utility.

Achievements of Bentham:

Bentham was a true practical reformer and a great smasher of political evils in his age. He took keen interest in the political life of his country. Bentham and his followers are mainly responsible for the parliamentary reforms in England during the nineteenth century like the Municipal Reform Act of 1835. The following reforms are also due to Bentham’s suggestion:

1. Reform of law and legal procedure

2. University education became universal

3. Establishment of trade union

of 111


His theory of law established the point of view of analytic jurisprudence, which was almost the only system of the subject generally known to English and American lawyers throughout the nineteenth century.

Bentham contributed, sometimes on the request, sometimes as volunteer to the revision of the legal codes of many countries. In 1811 he made a formal proposal to President Madison to draw up a scientific code of law for the USA. Later he made a similar offer to the Czar of Russia and to the Governor of Pennsylvania, and in 1822 he appealed to “all nations professing opinions.” His confidence in his ability to create a system of laws guaranteed to promote the greatest good of greatest number was unbounded.

Bentham’s writings became popular in many countries. His doctrines were very popular in Spain, Russia, and Iberian Peninsula and in several parts of South America. His ideas were used by the leaders of the national movements that defeated the Holy Alliance and created new nations on the ruins of the Spanish and Turkish Empires. Such was the tremendous influence which Bentham exercised in the History of Political Thought.

Bentham’s Views on Rights and Duties

Bentham discarded natural rights to the individuals. But he did not kill the concept of natural rights. Bentham totally denied the existence of natural law, holding that law is the expression of the sovereign will in the shape of a command. This sovereign was absolute and omnipotent against which individuals possessed no natural rights nor did they have any legal right to show resistance against it.

Bentham was a passionate champion for the existence of freedom and equality but he would not base them natural law. He supported for the existence of an authority for the purpose to enforce rights by imposing penalties in case of violation. Neither law of nature or natural rights could impose limitations on the unlimited absolute powers of sovereign authority. The only conceivable imposition to the authority could possibly be made by effective resistance by the determined subjects.

It is queer to note that, though Bentham denied natural rights, yet he could not disregard the right of private property. He advocated it for its preservation on the basis of general utility. The happiness of the individual depended upon security, subsistence, abundance and equality. Security includes liberty, safety and property of the individual. Thus the legal reformer recognizes the right of property. He prefers security to liberty.

of 111


Kinds of Rights:

1. Legal Rights:

A vivid and intelligible expression means a faculty of action sanctioned by the will of a supreme law-maker in a political society.

2. Moral Rights:

It means vivid and intelligible expression than the other. Its sanction is the opinion or feeling of a group of persons who cannot be precisely identified, but who nevertheless are able to make their collective or over age will unmistakably manifest.

3. Natural Rights:

It is a term commonly used without any definite meaning or any form of usefulness. Nature is a vague and indefinite entity. It may indeed be used as synonymous with God. In any other sense it denotes something that cannot be thought as endowed with will, and is incapable of making law. “Natural Rights” is a phrase that can contribute only confusion in a national system of political science.

Kinds of Duties:

According to Bentham, duties of following kinds:

1. Political Duty:

It is determined by the penalty which a definitely known person i.e., a political superior will inflict for the violation of certain rights.

2. Religious Duty:

It is determined by the punishment to be inflicted by a definitely known being i-e the Creator.

3. Moral Duty:

It depends upon circumstances hardly certain and definite enough to be called punishment, yet such as to create an unpleasant state of mind in the person concerned, by putting in disagreeable relations with that infinite body of individuals known as the community in general.

Bentham denied natural rights and natural law, yet he carried both these things in his political philosophy. Sabine said, “The liberal elements in Bentham’s Philosophy resided largely in its tacit premises. When he observed that one man is worth just the same as another man or that in calculating the greatest happiness, each person is ‘to count for one and no one more than one,’ he

of 111


was obviously borrowing the principle of equality from natural law.”

of 111


Bentham’s Views on Sovereignty and Government

Bentham empowered the sovereign with unlimited powers to legislate all and everything. The supreme government authority, though not infinite must unavoidably, be allowed to infinite unless limited by express convention. The only possible restraint on the sovereign authority is his own anticipation of popular resistance, based upon popular interests. Bentham firmly believed in the written constitutions as guarantees of rational governments, but he was against any bill of rights, limitations upon the powers to amend the constitution and all other devices for restraining the supreme authority and regarded them unsound in theory and worthless in practice. He said that rights emanated from the supreme authority of the state, i-e, the sovereign. The sovereign was not bound to respect any individual rights. A government was liberal and despotic according to the arrangement of distribution and application of supreme power.

Rights of Resistance:

Bentham thought that a subject had no legal right to show resistance or revolt against sovereign. Their legal duty is unconditioned obedience to the sovereign. But a subject has a moral right and a moral duty to resist his sovereign if the utility of resistance were greater than the evil of resistance. The exercise of his unlimited powers by the sovereign would depend on considerations of utility.

Government:

Bentham believed that in the long run a representative democracy was a more suitable form of government than any other to secure the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The main thing is that the government should be an agency of good, i-e, of happiness and not of evil. The extension, duration and intensity of government power should be properly restricted and de-limited with a view to secure the maximum of happiness and pleasures.

Bentham seems reluctant to agree with Blackstone’s characterization of the British constitution as perfect, and suggested some amendments to it. He was for the promulgation of universal manhood suffrage, annual parliaments and voting by ballot. He disliked oth the monarchy and the House of Lords in Britain. A republican government was best because it ensured efficiency, economy and supremacy of the people and brought about the greatest good of the greatest number on the basis of the identity of interests between the ruler and the ruled. Democratic constitution is presented by him.

of 111


Theory of Punishment:

Bentham held that punishment should be preventive and corrective rather than coercive and retaliatory. It should be calculated to prevent the spread of evil and to secure the extension of good. Punishment must not be inflicted where it was ineffective, groundless, needless or unprofitable. It should be obviously justifiable and proportionate to the offence committed but it must be sufficient to secure its ends. It ought to be able to prevent the offender from repeating the offence. It should be individualized, qualitatively and quantitatively, to suit the individual offender. The basic principles of punishment are:

1. Equable

2. Exemplary

3. Frugal of Pain

4. Remissible

5. Compensatory

6. Reformatory

7. Popular

8. Certain and not severe

According to Bentham, the only valid test of the adequacy of a punishment was its ability to secure public welfare. He believed that the English criminal law was inhuman. He was in favor of the reform of the criminal and the prisons and suggested the building of his moral Panopticon, a wheel-shaped building for the housing and proper observation of the criminals. He had a great faith in education as he wanted to bring about adult franchise, a responsible executive, universal education and a representative parliament.

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill

“If the caliber of writers is to be judged by their effect on policy, Mill must rank high. As logician, economist and political philosopher he was regarded as a prophet in his own age.” (John Bowle)

Introduction:

John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in London. He was the eldest son of his father James Mill who was the disciple of Bentham. J. S. Mill started the learning of Greek language at the age of three and then Latin at the age of eight. As a young boy of twelve, he had studied the philosophy of some of the great philosophers, such as Plato, Herodotus, Homer, Aristotle and Thucydides. He also learned French language and acquired a great fluency.

Mill was trained by his father and by John Austin. He was greatly influenced by Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy and his programmes for reformation. But with the passage pf time, many of the evils against which the early utilitarian had been working hard, had ceased to exist and Benthamism began yielding before other philosophic systems. The biological speculations of Darwin and Spencer and the sociological researches of Auguste Comte stirred the passionate seekers of learning and knowledge with the initiation of new currents of thought and Mill was also influenced by them. He modified Bentham from ethical, sociological, psychological, economic and political points of views.

The year of 1856 was a year of tribulations and chaos on account of Indian freedom fighters and formidable aggressions of foreign masters. History of India was written with Indian blood and in this crucial period of life and death, Mill served the East India Company as an Examiner of Indian Correspondence. In 1858 he retired. Then he became the radical member of the Parliament and remained almost in the limbo of oblivion. Mill died on 8th May, 1873 at Avignon.

He wrote following books:

1. A system of Logic

2. Some unsettled questions in Political Economy

of 111


3. Essay on Liberty

4. Consideration on Re-tentative Government

5. Utilitarianism

6. Thoughts on Parliamentary reforms

7. Subjection of Women

8. Principles of Political Economy

9. On the improvement of Administration of India during the last 30 Years (1858)

Importance of J. S. Mill in the History of Political Thought

J. S. Mill sought after vivid ideas with the ardency of a mystic, the patience and arduous industry of a man of science. He encountered opponents with magnanimity and generosity. In praise of his immortal ideas which will ever echo in the corridors of time, it has been said, “No calculus can integrate the innumerable pulses of knowledge and of thought that he had made to vibrate in the minds of generation.”

Mill was the great prophet of sane Individualism or Liberalism. He insisted upon the importance of human progress in its richest variety. He was one of the stoutest champions of individual liberty. When we turn the pages of antiquity, Plato distinctively appears to be the first feminist, passionately advocating the cause of women to take part in the functions of the government. J. S. Mill too was a great feminist and he practically pleaded their causes in the parliament. He firmly believed for equality of women for the benefit and uplift of the state. Mill’s impact of Feminism obviously appeared in the early 20th century when the Feminist Movement fought for women freedom for participating in the functions of the state.

Mill was one of the foremost individualists of all times. He ranked with Rousseau, Jefferson and Milton as an ardent crusader of individual liberty. He humanized utilitarian philosophy. He was a staunch enemy of despotism and monocracy and a great supporter of democracy. He combined political liberalism with economic socialism and approval of a common ownership in the raw materials of the globe and an equal participation of all in the benefits of the combined labor. Mill’s political philosophy contains following important facts:

1. His theory of liberty was his most important contribution to the history of political philosophy.

of 111


2. He favored democracy as the best form of government as a result of adult franchise.

3. He supported universal suffrage granting the right of voting to women also, with a system of proportional system.

4. He opposed the secret ballot because it led to favoritism and corruption and vigorously proposed for open ballot system.

5. He recommended a second chamber. He believed that the final legislative authority should rest with the House of Commons, but at the same time he assigned the task of drafting bills, before they come to the parliament for consideration to the House of Lords.

6. Mill’s method was analytic. He believed that study of history combined with a knowledge of human nature and a careful analysis of political phenomenon would result in a gauging of tendencies of great value to legislators and statesmen.

7. Bentham thought of quantitative pleasures. Mill believed in qualitative pleasures. He drew a distinction between several kinds of pleasures, considering some as higher while others as lower.

Prof. Sabine said, “Mill’s ethics was important for liberalism because in effect it abandoned egoism, assumed that social welfare is a matter of concern to all men of goodwill, and regarded freedom, integrity, self-respect and personal distinction as intrinsic goods apart from their contribution to happiness.”

Mill’s Views on Individual Liberty

J. S. Mill is universally regarded as a passionate advocate of liberty. He vigorously whispered for imparting great importance to individual liberty and emphasized that governmental interference in individual activity should e reduced to the minimum. In the middle of the 19th century, due to the utilitarian reforms, the scope of administrative activities increased. Parliament became the supreme and unchallenged law-making authority, who enacted such laws which vividly obstructed individual liberty. With the imposition of increasing state regulations, human activities were suffocated and he firmly believed that liberty was a prime factor for the development of the society. At that time, policy of Laissez fair was being abandoned in favor of greater regulations by the state. The people became politically conscious and demanded universal suffrage.

When Mill wrote, utilitarian liberalism was generally accepted in England. The democratic efforts made by the earlier utilitarian had been largely successful and political power had been extended to a considerable proportion of the population. A large number of old evils and inequalities had been removed. In this process some of the dangers of democracy became visible,

of 111


and the tendency toward state centralization led political theory to the scope of state activities and to the liberty of the individual. The leader in the intellectual life of the period was J. S. Mill.

Mill’s essay on liberty which equals in eminence to Milton’s Aeropagitica was a strong advocacy for the freedom of thought and expression with Miltonian favor against legislative interference as well as against the pressure of the public opinion. He recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind of freedom of opinion and freedom of expression of opinion. The limitations of the power of government over individuals lose none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community. In political speculations the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

Mill apprehended that the growth of democracy and the increasing legislative powers of the state tended to reduce individuals to a common type and to swamp them in the tyranny of collectivism. He believed that social progress could not be achieved if each and every individual is imparted with fuller opportunity for free development of his personality. Mill favored freedom of thought, speech and action. He believed in toleration of opinions and unhampered freedom of discussion. He had confidence that truth would definitely survive in the struggle of ideas.

Freedom of the Individual:

Originality in conduct and thought and individuality are essentially basic features efforting towards social welfare. When individuality is quelled by the law of a monarch or an aristocrat, the evil of it may be counteracted by the custom of the masses, but when the masses make the law of repression, custom unites with legislation to confirm the evil. Individual development enriches the world by a variety of characters. But he imposes two limitations on this liberty:

1. The individual was not at liberty to do any harm to his fellow beings.

2. He must share labors and sacrifices to secure the society or individuals against harm.

Mill pleads for certain freedoms for the individual without which he cannot develop his personality properly. These are:

a. Freedom of conscience

b. Liberty of thought and of its expression in speech and writing

c. Liberty of pursuits and tastes

d. Liberty of association

e. Liberty to adopt his own profession in life of 111


f. Liberty of religion and morals

Mill laid great stress on liberty of thought and expression. Mill’s theory of liberty of the individual is based upon three essential elements:

1. A strong plea for the importance of impulse and desire in the individual and letting the individual follow his own impulses in actions which concern him alone.

2. Insistence on the view that spontaneity and individuality are essential elements in individual and social welfare.

3. Revolt against the tyranny of custom, tradition or public opinion which might hinder the expression and development of individuality.

Important points of Mill’s Individual Liberty:

1. Mill advocated that individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He must be left free in all actions that concern himself alone. And society has no right to impose any restraint over the individual because restraints as such in an evil and retards the progress of the individuals.

2. Mill assumed that the activities of every individual are either self-regarding or other-regarding. In the sphere of self-regarding activities may be included matters which affect the agent only, having no concern with others e.g. gambling, drinking etc.

3. Mill believed in the individualistic or atomistic conception of society. He says that individual is not responsible to society for his actions in so far as they concern the interest of himself and do no affect others.

4. Mill vigorously advocated for absolute and unfettered freedom of thought and expression.

5. The freedom of action and association was to be limited by the condition that none should jeopardize other’s rights and freedom.

Criticism:

Mill was bitterly criticized because of his certain inconsistencies on the doctrine of liberty at the hands of Earnest Barker who said, “Mill was the prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract individual.”

Mill’s theory was criticized on the following ground:

1. Mill assumed that the individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He should be left free to act as he wished and society cannot impose any limitation on his freedom. The soundness

of 111


of this statement may be doubted. The sovereignty of individual over himself is not a self-evident proposition. As Mill himself admits, “there can be circumstances under which it may become legitimate for others to intervene in a purely personal matter, e.g, when one is about to commit suicide, surely no one will call it an attack upon one’s liberty.”

2. The bifurcation of human actions into two-self regarding and other regarding as made by Mill is quite impracticable. No individual is an island in himself. There is very little that one can do which does not affect other person. It is but natural and each action of individual will definitely affect the others. Therefore it is difficult to set apart a sphere of conduct which should be regarded exclusively the affair of the individual concerned.

__________________

of 111


Western Political Thought---Karl Marx

Karl Marx

“With Marx, socialism became international or cosmopolitan n scope in contrast to the association or national industrialism of his predecessors.” (R. G. Gettell)

Introduction:

Karl Marx born in a prosperous family became a victim of misfortunes, a prey of perpetual crushing poverty and a painfully sensitive to see the incredible sufferings of humanity because of economic inequality, social disparity, incalculable violence and mal-treatment towards laborers at the hands of feudal lords and industrialists. He was born at Treves in Prussia on 5th May, 1818. His aristocratic Jewish parents embraced Christianity when Karl Marx was only a child. At the age of 17, he became a law student at Bonn University. In 1826, he left for the University of Berlin. In 1843, he married Jenny, a member of petty nobility who remained a faithful counterpart throughout his life.

In 1841, Karl Marx got his degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Jena on the tropic of “The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of Democratus and Epicurus.” He mixed with the revolutionaries and his radical thinking made him suspicious which created obstacle in the security of employment as a university teacher. Then he entered into the field of journalism. Karl Marx studied Hegel very thoroughly and noted basic fallacies in his idealistic philosophy.

In early 1845, Karl Marx left Paris for Brussels. But before he left France, he got an ever-lasting friendship with Friedrich Engel which brought many changes in his life. Marx-Engel collaboration was one of the history’s most unique prominent and enduring collaboration. Friedrich Engel became the friend, disciple and passionate seeker of knowledge and a warm partner. In the summer of 1845, Friedrich took Karl Marx to England and there he was introduced to the founders of the “German Workers Educational Union” that had recently started in London. After remaining for sometime in London, he again came back to Brussels. Marx had to flee from one country to another on account of his conspiratorial activities. Then he steeled down in London till his death.

“England has often been called the mother of Exiles”, but for Karl Marx, it became the dwelling place of miseries and misfortunes. He experienced great distress and poverty along with his big family. In spite of lot of misfortunes and hardships, Karl Marx made endeavors relentlessly to unchain the working classes from the bondage of capitalism. Karl Marx worked round the clock in the British Museum for developing the economic theories of capital. Karl Marx wrote many

of 111


pamphlets defending himself and severely criticizing his opponents. He died as a wounded soul on March 14, 1883. He led a life of full of pangs and despondency and faced the hardships of worldly agency with determination, courage and perseverance. In a speech over his grave in High ate Cemetery, Friedrich Engel declared that “his name and works will live on through the centuries.”

Karl Marx was a great writer and will ever live on the pages of existence. He wrote the following master works:

1. Communist Manifesto immortalized Karl Marx. He wrote this with the assistance and help of his faithful friend Friedrich Engel. This is considered the Bible of the Communism all over the world.

2. Das Kapital is considered as the foundation stone of communism.

3. Poverty of Philosophy

4. A Contribution to the critique of Political Economy

5. The Holy Family

6. Revolution and Counter Revolution

Political Philosophy of Karl Marx

Karl Marx is rightly called the Father of Modern Communism. The theory of communism owes its birth to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. According to the theory of communism, the only practical thing was to acquire mastery over the governing laws of society. Apart from this, Karl Marx and Engel wanted to know the causes of economic changes in human society. They also wanted to explore what further changes are required. They concluded that the changes in human society were not the least accidental like changes in external nature. They worked out a scientific theory of society based on the actual experience of men. Karl Marx applied this theory to the society in which he lived mainly Capitalist Britain. He was of the opinion that it was quite impossible to separate his economic theories from historical and social theories. Marx attacked the existing capitalist institutions. He did not believe in the essential goodness of man. He conceived of a man more as an economic as a political animal.

Karl Marx borrowed from Hegel the apparatus of Dialectics but substituted matter of Hegelian idea. He built his concept of dialectic materialism by interpreting Hegel’s World Spirit as an economic force. Karl Marx held the view that the meaning of history lay in the interpretation of material world. Karl Marx is correctly divisible into three portions:

of 111


1. A purely philosophical section on dialectics

2. Pure economics

3. Historical materialism

Hegel’s influence over Karl Marx:

Karl Marx remains incomplete without the study of Hegel. It is true that Karl Marx rejected the substance of Hegel’s political philosophy and it is a stark reality in history that Karl Marx adopted the dialectical method developed by Hegel, as the basis for his historical materialism. Hegel was of the view that history gained its meaning from the interaction of ideas. There was a perennial struggle of ideas for dominance over one another. Out of this struggle of ideas, new ideas emerged and these new ideas corresponded more closely to the ultimate perfection of God himself.

Every idea according to Hegel, is incomplete with inherent contradiction. The incompleteness or inherent contradictions is every idea led naturally to its opposite, which may be called anti-thesis. From the struggle between the two, i.e. ‘thesis’ and ‘anti-thesis’ there emerged the truth embraced by both which may be called “synthesis”. This ‘synthesis’ becomes a new thesis and again there came an ‘anti-thesis’ and again emerged a ‘synthesis, and the process repeated itself in an unending chain. Karl Marx opined that history unfolded according to a dialectical plan. Here he fully agrees with Hegel. But he was of the view that ideas were not the controlling factors. Ideas do not control the reality. These are the outcome of material conditions.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel developed communism as an ardent opposing force to capitalism. Appalling degradation of man in society and crushing poetry were the real basis for the communist protest. The degradation was accompanied by uncontrolled industrialization in the middle of the nineteenth century. The whole Europe was engulfed in moral turpitude, degeneration and oppression which fully justified the advent of communist’s bitterness and scorn against the capitalistic structure of society. This caused great frustration among the masses and consequently they became inquisitive to bring about social justice.

Karl Marx was a social scientist. As a social scientist, he made efforts to look at this injustice quite impersonally. But these consequences according to Karl Marx were essentially involved for the accumulation of capital. Karl Marx viewed that in each and every society industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal to about half of this value or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during his working day is taken outright by his employer.”

“The truce and the false together in Karl Marx constitute one of the most tremendously

of 111


compelling forces that modern history has seen. For the power of his message and for his influence upon the future movement of the communism, Karl Marx can be sure of his place amongst great masters of political thought.” (Wayper)

Proletarian Dictatorship

The Proletariat class comprises of the workers, laborers or wage-earners would naturally be in the vast majority in every society. Karl Marx was of the view that it is then quite natural that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a democracy of the majority. The “Communist Manifesto” also says “The first step in the working class revolution is the raising of the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, the victory of democracy. The proletarian movement is the conscious movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority.” Karl Marx believed in the inevitability of this class struggle and the ultimate victory of the proletariat after a successful bloody revolution, he did not like to leave this development to the forces of economic evolution. He wanted that this revolution should be precipitated through organization and energetic sophisticated action on the part of workers. All the confronted titanic forces should be crushed by the laborers.

The Marxian ideal was to bring about proletarian dictatorship through violent means and not through peaceful evolution, resulting in the political and economic domination by the proletarians. The proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie class in the state is directed towards the achievement of two ends:

1. Firstly, this proletarian revolution has to destroy the capitalist structure of society. In destroying the capitalist stat it is very essential for the proletarian revolution to destroy all the social, political, legal and other such institutions of the capitalist state.

2. Secondly, the proletarian revolution has to replace all the social, political, legal and other institutions with new institutions. These new institutions should be such as it suits the needs of the proletarian class.

Karl Marx said, “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of proletariat.” Lenin was the true follower of Karl Marx. He was of the view that Communism is to be achieved in two stages. The first stage of Communism follows immediately after the seizure of power by the proletarian. In this stage of communism, society would not be a free society. This stage of communism contains the blend of vestiges of old and bourgeoisie order. In the old capitalist state, the capitalist employer and exploiter used to suppress the minority and in the new stage of Communism or in the proletariat dictatorship it would be proletariat class which would suppress

of 111


the minority or the capitalist. The Communist state differs from the capitalist state in two ways:

a) In it the majority i.e. the workers will expropriate the majority.

b) The revolutionary proletariat will abolish all classes and then disappear as a class.

The proletarian dictatorship in the transitional period is not a fluctuating period of “Super Revolutionary” deeds and decrease. On the contrary, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be regarded as an entire historical epoch full of external conflicts and civil wars. In the dictatorship of proletariat there is a constant organizational work along with economic progress. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat will be given full opportunity to educate itself.

Lenin said, “Under the dictatorship of the proletariat we will have to re-educate million of peasants and petty proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office workers and bourgeoisie intellectuals to subordinate all these to proletarian state and to proletarian leadership, to overcome their bourgeoisie habits and traditions, to re-educate in a protracted struggle under the controlling auspices of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarians themselves, for they will not be able themselves of own petty bourgeoisie prejudices at the first stroke as if by magic, or at the behest of the Virgin Mary, or by a slogan, resolution or decree it can be done only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against the mass of petty bourgeoisie influence.”

The Communist holds that the proletarian dictatorship means the despotic rule of the Communist minority. It will be a victory of democracy and not a despotism of a minority. The proletariat class in power will not maintain the affairs of the state with repression and violence. Laski was of the view that the dictatorship of the proletariat means, not the anti-thesis of democracy, but the anti-thesis of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It will be exercised through elected bodies and subject to public opinion. Lenin also remarks in this regard, “Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is power won and maintained by the violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie power that is unrestrained by any law.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end, but a means to an end the creation of society in which the basic principle of life and social organization would be, “from each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” The dictatorship of the proletariat is transitory in nature. After the establishment of the society, dictatorship of the proletariat will not remain. The state will wither away. All functions of the state will administer themselves and administration will be a matter of technical and scientific knowledge instead of exercise of political will and authority. There will be an ideal society of the free and the equal without any internal disruption and mutual dissension.

of 111


Karl Marx and Capitalism

Karl Marx devoted a great part of his life to the study of capitalism I order to describe the capitalist method of production of his own age and for all ages to come. By studying capitalism, Karl Marx wanted to know the guiding principle of its change. Karl Marx studied the capitalism with missionary spirit to make a scientific forecast on its development. The salient feature of the feudal production was production for local consumption. In the age of feudalism, persons used to produce for themselves and for their feudal lords. In those days, production was meant for consumption. Gradually feudal units of production began to break up. Profit became the only aim of production in the modern world. Production for profit required two things, capitalists’ means of production, and the laborers whose only chance of getting a livelihood was to sell his labor.

In this new system of production, there was a complete change. Now the laborers produced things not for their personal use. On the contrary the production was meant for the capitalist to sell for money. In this new system of production, things were produced not for consumption but for sale in the market. Laborer received his wages for his capitalist employer for his work and the capitalist employer received profit. Karl Marx is of the view that profit arises in the course of production. Sale of products does not produce profit.

According to Karl Marx, the exchange value of product depends upon the Labor Time spent in its production. A product has a great exchange value if more human labor has been put into its production. Labor time spent in producing labor power means the time spent in producing the food, shelter, clothes and other such things which are essential for the laborer maintenance. Nowadays a laborer is able to produce in a day more than is necessary to his survival but he is paid by his employer a wage commensurate with a subsistence level of existence. The difference is called surplus value. In the modern capitalist society this surplus value is appreciated by the capitalist employer.

Karl Marx is of the view that capitalists are permanent profit makers because they appropriate surplus value. It is very true that there is always a difference between the exchange value of a product produced by laborer and the value of labor power. In simple terms this difference may be called surplus value. Karl Marx opined that under capitalist structure of production in each and every factory and industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal about half this value or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during his working days is taken outright by his employer.”

In the capitalist system of production, the capitalist always become greedy and ambitious to increase the amount of surplus value which means more profit for him. Lust for profit is the

of 111


prime factor in the capitalist system of production. The capitalist make more profit only by exploiting the laborer. According to Karl Marx exploitation of the laborer is another salient feature of capitalism. This exploitation results in class struggle. Class struggle is perennial and perpetual in the capitalism. The worker is fighting for the existence of his life and he wanted to avoid intimidation and ultimately class struggle starts. The laborer demands higher wages and shorter hours of work for improving his position. On the other hand, the capitalist wants to make more profits and hence there is a constant clash and struggle between the capitalist and the laborer, which can never come to an end so long as the capitalist system of production lasts.

Karl Marx is of the view that property in any form is not capital, unless it is used to produce surplus value. The early accumulation of capital was very largely open robbery. But there was another way also through which capital came into existence. According to Karl Marx the primitive accumulation is the real origin of capital. He ridicules the legend of men, moderate in food and drink who served from their meager living. Karl Marx said, “This primitive accumulation plays in political economy about the same part as original sin played in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell upon the human race. In times long gone by there were town sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent and above all frugal elite: the other lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more in riotous living. Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth and the latter sort had a t last nothing to sell except their own skin. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labor, has up to now nothing to sell but itself and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work.”

With the victory of the proletariat, the class struggle puts an end to this process by ending capitalist system of production. Apart from class-struggle, there are other obstructions to the smooth development of capitalism. In other words we may say that these obstacles as a matter of fact are inherent in the capitalism. The most important among these obstacles, is the economic crisis. This crisis creates a great obstacle to the smooth course of capitalist development. Whenever economic crisis occur, it checks the expansion of capital. Economic crisis do not check the expansion of capital, but often led to the destruction of the capital accumulated in past years. Karl Marx said, “In these crisis there broke out an epidemic that, is all earlier epochs, would have become an absolutely the epidemic of over-production.”

__________________

of 111


Theory of State

“The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie as a whole.” (Karl Marx)

State is thought of as parliament or some representative institution. Karl Marx concluded that the development of the state had nothing to do with any form of representative institutions. But he was of the view that state is a machine through which the ruling class imposes its will on the majority. According to Karl Marx, state is not meant for the promotion of the welfare of its people nor bestows any right of political obligation and obedience but its coercion and that a class coercion. The state acts as an agency of class coercion in the hands of dominant economic class rather than an association of citizens is the pursuits of a common purpose.

According to the Communist theory, the state is nothing but a tool of the dominant class in society. Economic is the domineering factor which becomes the base of all structures of the society. According to Aristotle the state came into birth for the sake of life and state continues to exist for the sake of good life. According to classical view, state is an institution meant for the proper development of the personality of its each and every citizen. Laski said, “State strives to hold a just balance between the different elements in society. It strives by its policy to effect such an adjustment of the relationship between citizens and will enable each of them to realize, if he so desires, the fullest implications of human personality.”

Karl Marx vividly differs from the classical views regarding state. He says the state has never and can never aim at the common good of the community as a whole. According to Communist Manifesto, the state is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx said, “State is nothing more than the form of organization which the bourgeoisie necessarily adopt both for internal and external purpose for the mutual guarantee of their property and interest.”

According to Karl Marx, there was no state in primitive society and as soon as human society was formed it bifurcated into two classes. It became very essential for the privileged class to have an armed force for the purpose to maintain the privileges of the privileged class and secondly to protect the interests of the privileged class. Friedrich Engel said, “This public force exists in every state, it consists not merely of armed men, but of material appendages, prisons and repressive institutions of all kind.” Naturally, the ruling class having the apparatus of force and absolute rod of authority will always coerce upon the other classes of society. Fear and intimidation of the ruling class constrained the people to subdue for complete obedience and hence the Marxian state aims at crushing the independent will of its subjects. Communists hold the views from the record of history that the state exists only to help the capitalist in exploiting

of 111


and suppressing the laborers.

Karl Marx viewed state as a product of class antagonism. Lenin said, “Where, when and to what extent, the state arises depends directly on which where and to what extent, the class antagonism of a given society cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely the existence of the state proves that class antagonisms are irreconcilable.” Karl Marx was of the view that the state will be able to wither away completely when society has realized the value, “From each according to his ability: to each according to his needs.” Then there would be no problem of production and its distribution. There would be no question of mine and thine. Every one will work voluntarily according to his ability and capacity and will get share according to his needs and requirements.

Classless Society:

Karl Marx was of the opinion that class struggle is perpetual and constant between man and man and consequently man always fought for his own existence. It ends only if the final and ultimate victory of the labor is achieved. This is a known factor that in the capitalist structure of society, but not over the means of production and its direction was vested in the hands of the capitalist. Proletariats in that society are neglected people always living at the sweet mercy of capitalist. When violent bloody revolution in the name of communism bring about complete and ultimate victory to the proletarian revolutionaries, and the complete annihilation of the aristocratic and capitalist class in the society ushers a new epoch of social equality and economic parity. With the advent of proletarianism, a new system of legal, economic, political and production world emerges out. In this new system, all the functions of the government and the means as well as technique of production were to be controlled by the society.

Friedrich Engel said, “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians it creates the power which under penalty of its own destruction is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production already socialized into state property. It shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into state property.” All the class distinction in society would disappear, and with the disappearance of the class distinctions in society, the class struggle would also come to an end. The proletariat would use their power to eliminate private ownership of means of production. As soon as private ownership of means of production is eliminated, all class distinction would automatically vanish and society would become a stateless and classless society.

Criticism:

1. Karl Marx’s theory of state stands against the classical theory of state. According to

of 111


classical view, the main reason for the existence of the state is the promotion of the good of the community. On the contrary, Karl Marx’s state is a machine by which one class exploits and suppresses the other.

2. Karl Marx’s views do no explain the exact nature of the state. It gives a wrong conception. He says that the ruling class is the representative of an economic class and the ruling class is always interested in pursuing its own interests. This is incorrect view of Karl Marx. The example of medieval kings and emperors stand against the theory of Karl Marx as they were not the representative of an economic class and consciously pursuing the interests of their own class. On the contrary, the ancient and medieval kings were the representatives of the whole society.

3. Karl Marx’s theory of stat is quite applicable to the first half of the nineteenth century, but for twentieth century it is quite inapplicable. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Laissez-faire policy was predominant but today its forces are no longer reliable. Now we live in an era of democratic socialist planning. Nowadays state is meant for the promotion of the common good. Thus it can be said that Karl Marx’s theory of state is not at all applicable to the states of modern times.

4. The conception of Karl Marx that victory of proletariats over the capitalists would result in the disappearance of class distinction is absolutely incorrect and untrue for glaring reasons that he had created class distinction i.e. bourgeoisie and proletariat, two great hostile camps and two prominent classes constantly indulging in class struggle and warfare which culminated into oppression and chaos.

__________________

of 111


Muslim Political Thought---Al-Farabi

Al-Farabi

Introduction:Abu Nasr Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Tarkhan al-Farabi was born at Wasij, a village near Farab, a district of Transoxania. He was one of the greatest philosophers that the Muslim world had ever produced. He mainly studied in Baghdad and after gaining considerable proficiency in the Arabic language, he became an ardent pupil of the Christian savant Abu Bishr Matta bin Younus, quite prominent as translator of a number of works by Aristotle and other Greek versatile writers.Being a first Turkish philosopher, he left behind lasting and profound influence upon the life of succeeding Muslim Philosophers. Being a great expositor of Aristotle’s logic, he was aptly called al-mu’alim al thani (the second teacher). According to Ibn-e-Khaldoon, no Muslim thinker ever reached the same position as al-Farabi in Philosophical knowledge. Al-Farabi is the first Muslim philosopher to have left political writings, either in the form of commentaries or in treaties of his own based upon Plato.Al-Farabi’s works was preserved from ravages of time contain five on politics as under:1. A Summary of Plato’s Laws2. Siyasatu’l-Madaniyah3. Ara’u ahli’l-Madinatu’l-Fadilah4. Jawami’u’s-Siyasat5. Ijtima’atu’l-Madaniyah

Contribution of Al-Farabi to Islamic Political Thought

“In pure philosophy, Farabi became as famous as any philosopher of Islam, and it is said that a savant of caliber of Avicenna found himself entirely incapable of understanding the true bearing of Aristotle’s Metaphysics until one day he casually purchased one of Farabi’s works and by its help he was able to grasp their purport.” (Sherwani)Al-Farabi was a renowned philosopher of his age and deeply reverenced in all ages. Al-Farabi’s insatiated enthusiasm led him to study Philosophy, Logic, Politics, Mathematics and Physics. He left his indelible impact upon the succeeding generations through his works, which are still read, learnt and discussed with great passion and literal zest. His sincerity, profound moral convictions and his genuine belief in liberty and in the dignity of human being united with his moderation and humanitarianism made him the ideal spokesman of his age, which was full of rivalries, corrosions and false vanities.

of 111


Sherwani was of the view, “A man with such learning had no place in the ninth-century Baghdad and as we have pointed out, we find him regularly attached to Saif-ud-Dowlah’s court. In 946 Saif took Damascus and Al-Farabi became permanent resident of that delightful place, spending his time in the gardens of the erstwhile Umayyad capital discussing philosophical questions with his friends and writing down his opinions and compositions sometimes in a regular form, sometimes in an irregular form, sometimes, on merely loose leaves.” Al-Farabi renunciated from the worldly matters and he never pursued the pleasures and luxuries like other middle class Abbasids. He led exemplary simple life with full contentment with what he got to eat and to wear.It can be very well asserted that al-Farabi was in the truest sense “the parent of all subsequent Arabic Philosophers”. The great Christian scholars namely Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquines acknowledged their indebtedness to al-Farabi in the development of their own political theories. Al-Farabi laid down several rules for teachers honestly striving to train the young students in philosophy. No scholar should start the study of philosophy until he gets very well acquainted with natural sciences. Human nature rises only gradually from the sensuous to the abstract, from the imperfect to the perfect. Mathematics in particular is very important in training the mind of a young philosopher, it helps him pass from the sensuous to the intelligible and further it informs his mind with exact demonstrations. Similarly, the study of logic as an instrument to distinguish the true from the false should precede the study of philosophy proper.Al-Farabi voluminously wrote mainly on pure philosophy and there is no doubt that he had to draw on neo-Platonic ideas current in the Arab world of those days in his commentaries on Aristotle, Porphyry and Ptolemy. Sherwani says that we might accept the proposition that he was inspired by Plato, in this setting up of the Ideal City, but as there is a mass of new material in his political writings not found in Plato and taken from local sources, it is a matter of importance that such material should be analyzed and Farabi be given his rightful place on the scene of political philosophy. Al-Farabi died at the ripe age of nearly eighty years in 950. His name and works are everlasting and echoed in the corridors of time.

of 111


Al-Farabi’s Ideal Head of State

Every Islamic state is ruled by the ruler, or as later European Political scientists would call him the Sovereign. Plato after developing the matter of the government of his ideal city in his Republic had made the omnipotent and omniscient philosopher sovereign who should have no other interest but that of the affairs of state. Al-Farabi starts from the nature of the workers of leadership and impresses his readers that what is wanted for the office is the power of making proper deductions.

According to Al-Farabi, his Rais should be such superior man, who, by his very nature and upbringing, does not submit before any power or instructions of others. He must have the potentialities to convey his sense to others for complete submission. Rosenthal was of the view, “He is the Imam, the first ruler over the ideal city-state, over the ideal nation and over the whole inhabited earth. The philosopher-prophet, in the opinion of Al-Farabi, is alone qualified to help man, a citizen to reach his true human destiny, where his moral and intellectual perfection permit him to perceive God, under the guidance of the divinely revealed Shariat. Those ruled by the first ruler are the excellent, best and happy citizens.”

Al-Farabi contemplatively points out the virtuous qualities of his ideal Head of State, who should be competent to control the actions of all in the State and must be in possession of latest intellect as well as the gained intellect. All such refined and high qualities including his political and literal caliber make him an Ideal Sovereign for the overall interest of the society and the nation. He enumerated tweleve attributes of an ideal Sovereign:

1. He must possess persuasion and imagination to attain perfection as well as a philosopher skilled in the speculative science.

2. He must be physically sound with meticulous understanding.

3. He must have visualization of all that is said.

4. He must have a retentive and sharp memory.

5. He should discuss the matters with least possible arguments and must have authority to get the work done.

of 111


6. He must have power to convey to others exactly according to his wish and he has profound love of learning and knowledge.

7. He must have perfect capacity for a comprehensive knowledge and prescription of the theoretical and practical sciences and art, as well as for the virtues leading to good deeds.

8. He must shun off playfulness and control over anger and passions.

9. Al-Farabi’s ideal Rais must have love of truth, persuasion of justice and hatred of hypocrisy, knavery and duplicity.

10. He must vie for utmost happiness to his subjects and he should do away with all forces of tyranny and oppressions.

11. He must have power to distribute justice without any effort, fearless in doing things as he thinks best to be done.

12. He must serve the people of his state from all internal and external dangers. He must be in possession of considerable wealth, so that he should not prone to greed and lust.

Al-Farabi fully realizes that these fine qualities cannot be found in one single human being, so he says that one without just five or six of these qualities would make a fairly good leader. If however, even five or six of them are not found in a person, he would have one who has been brought up under a leader with these qualities, and would thus seen to prefer some kind of hereditary leadership, with the important condition that the heir should follow the footsteps of his worthy predecessor. In case even such a person is not available, it is preferable to have a council of two or even five members possessing an aggregate of these qualities provided at least one of them is a Hakim, i-e one who is able to know the wants of the people and visualize the needs of the state as a whole. This Hakim is to Farabi a desideratum of every kind of government, and if such a one is not procurable then the State is bound to be shattered to atoms.

of 111


Kinds of State

Al-Farabi describes the varieties of the states other than the Ideal States and the remarkable contribution of this philosopher are very much alive and given serious considerations even today. Al-Farabi divides states into following categories:

1. State of Necessity (Daruriya):Its inhabitants aim, at the necessities of the life, like food, drink, clothing, a place to live and carnal gratification and they generally help each other in securing these necessities of life.

2. Vile State (Nadhala):Its citizens strive for wealth and riches for their own sake. The account in the Siyasa includes a description of its ruler. Ibn-e-Rushd also succinctly touches upon this state.

3. Base and Despicable State:Its inhabitants concentrate on the pleasures of the senses, games and other pastimes. This state is the one in which men help one another to enjoy sensual pleasure such as games, jokes and pleasantries and this is the enjoyment of the pleasures of eating and merry-making. This state is the happy and fortunate state with the people of ignorance, for this state only aims at attaining pleasure after obtaining first the necessities of life and then abundant wealth to spend.

4. Timocracy (Madina Karama):It contains a variety of honours. Since the Arabic source of Al-farabi is lost in the wealth of legend, we are unable to determine whether this lengthy and diffuse description goes back to it or represents Al-Farabi’s own amplification. The latter seems to be more correct. The citizens of these honor-loving states assist each other in gaining glory, fame and honor. The honors fall into two groups. The first is a personal relationship between one who is worthy to be honored because of some virtue in him, and the others who accord him honor and respect because they recognize him as their superior. The second kind of honor is accorded to men because of their wealth, or because of they have been victorious, exercise authority or enjoy other distinctions. This state in the opinion of Al-Farabi is the best of all the states.

5. Tyranny (Taghallub):It receives from the aim of its citizens; they co-operate to give victory over others, but refuse to be vanquished by them. Al-Farabi sets out to distinguish between despotic states and define tyranny or despotism according to aim, mastery over others and over their possessions for

of 111


power’s sake, within or externally, by force and conquest or by persuasion and achieving enslavement. His despotic rule is a mixed one and thus often resembles timocracy or plutocracy. Ibn-e-Rushd avoids this by following Plato’s description of tyranny and the tyrannical man, and the transition from democracy to tyranny and of the democratic to the tyrannical man but done to their common source both Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Rushd similarly define tyranny as absolute power.

Rosenthal was of the view, “Tyranny has even more variations for Al-Farabi than timocracy; as many as the tyrant has desires, for this despotism expresses itself in imposing his will on his subjects and making them work for his personal ends. Al-Farabi knows of two kinds of tyranny within which these variations occur, internal and external tyranny. The first consists in the absolute mastery of the tyrant and his helpers over the citizens of the state, and the second is the enslavement of another state or people.”

6. Democracy (Madina Jama’iya):It is marked by the freedom of its inhabitants to do as they wish. They are all equal and no body has master over another. Their governors only govern with the explicit consent of the governed. Democracy contains good and bad features and it is therefore not impossible that at some time the most excellent men grow up there, so that philosophers, orators and poets come into being. It is thus possible to choose from its elements of the ideal state.

Apart from the afore-mentioned classification of the states, which seems to be idealistic, Al-Farabi has a definite place for the trait of political character over other nations. He initiates reasons for this mastery and says that it is sought by a people owing to its desire for protection, ease ort luxury and all that leads to the satisfactions of these necessities. In this powerful state, they might be able to get all the desire. There is nothing against human nature for the strong to over power the weak, so nations which try to get other nations under their control consider it quite proper to do so, and it is justice both to control the weak and for the weak to be so controlled, and the subdued nation should do it for the good of its masters.

There is no doubt that all the lapse of centuries and the international ideology which is the current coin in politics, the psychology of the nations today is much the same as described by the Master centuries ago. Al-Farabi said, “But the more chivalrous among them are such that even when they have to shed human blood they do so only face to face, not while their opponent is asleep or showing his back, nor do they take away his property except after giving him proper warning of their intentions. Such a community does not rest till it thinks it has become supreme forever, nor does it give any other nation an opportunity of over powering it, always regarding all other peoples their opponents and enemies and keeping itself on Guard.”

Colonies:Al-Farabi is comprehensively clear about the principles of colonization. He opines that the

of 111


inhabitants of a State must scatter hither and thither in different parts of a State because they have been overpowered by an enemy or by an epidemic or through economic necessity. There are only alternatives to the colonists, either to migrate I such a way as to form one single commonwealth or divide themselves in different political societies. It may come to compass that a large body of these people are of opinion that it is not necessary to change the laws which they have brought from their mother country; they would then simply codify existing laws and begin to live under them. It will thus be clear to understand that A-Farabi not only contemplates colonization but also self-Government of a republican kind which is closer to the modern conceptions. __________________

of 111


Muslim Political Thought---Al-Mawardi

Al-Mawardi

Introduction:Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Habib-al-Mawardi is the first writer on political theory in the history of Islam. Except Ibn-e-Khaldoon, all the jurists, thrologists and political philosophers who have followed him, down to our own days, have hardly made any improvement upon his thoughts. He was born in 974 AD and died in 1058 AD. Al-Mawardi was regarded as one of the versatile and most learned jurists of his age, and his opinions laid emphasis in the world of law and jurisprudence. He belonged to the orthodox Shafi’te school of jurisprudence and still we find traces of the pure rationalism. Like other Muslims he received the traditional education, and he wrote on many topics besides law, like, a Commentary on the Quran, a treatise on prophecy and several works on Ethics. As far his legal writings, it is noteworthy that “Government and administration, at all levels, were his principal concerns.”

Al-Mawardi started his career as a professor of law and jurisprudence at Basra and Baghdad, and later on he was appointed as Qazi-ul-Quzat of Baghdad by a-Qaim, Abbasid Caliph and he was also conferred an honorific title of Aqdal-Quat or the Supreme Justice. But he declined to accept this offer of appointment because he said there were far abler people who deserved the title much more than himself. It is related that he did not publish any of his works in his lifetime. When a friend asked why he kept his books back he replied that it was because he felt that his motives in writing them were not as pure as he should have wished and that he did not know whether Allah the Almighty had accepted these literary offerings or not.

Al-Mawardi has left a great and valuable treasure of knowledge and philosophy. His books are the following:

1. Al-Ahkam at-Sultaniyah (Ordinances of Government)2. Nasihat-ul-Muluk (Advice to Kings)3. Qawanin-ul-Wazarat (Laws of the Ministry)4. Tahsilun Nazar fi Tahsil-uz-Zafar (Control of Sight for facilitating Victory)

Contribution of Al-Mawardi to Islamic Political Thought

Al-Mawardi was the founder of the science of politics in the Islamic World. He was not very

of 111


original in what he did. His greatness lies in the fact that he received political opinions and traditions of the past and transformed them into a logical system. For four hundred years the Muslims were engaged in conquest and empire building, but they could not evolve any concrete pattern of government or administration. Al-Mawardi’s achievement is that he gave definition to what was unshapely and undefined. Moreover, he assembled his ideas in writing; therefore his book Al-Ahkam at-Sultaniyah became a standard work of reference on political and administrative practices.

In spite of the untenable position in which al-Mawardi had to work, one cannot fail to admire his effort to work out a political system essentially based on the fundamental thought and early political practice of Islam. Al-Mawardi’s remarkable contribution is that he has given a detailed account of the administrative machinery of Government. He portrayed not only what exists but also what ought to exist. This idealistic touch made his work popular with every regime and every generation that came after him.

Al-Mawardi’s work and his theory of Caliphate saved the Muslim people for a long to come from the extravagant and illogical claims of the Shiahs, the Khawarij, the Mutazilah and other extremist sects in Islam. His immediate aim of emancipating the Sunni Caliphate of the Abbasids from the Buwayhid tyranny was so providently realized in his own lifetime, that it must be counted as one of his remarkable achievements. Al-Mawardi knew that the Abbasids could not fully retrieve the lost ground and could not regain the glory of their early ancestors. To compensate this irretrievable position he instituted the theory of absolute governorship which provided a handy instrument of self-protection to the Abbasid Caliphs against the attempt of possible adventurers who aspired to overthrow the Caliphate. His most valuable contribution to political theory was that he based his account on historical practice and facts and liked other Jurists and the scholars; he did not indulge in empty speculation.

Criticism:But with all the good points that can be said about Al-Mawardi, he had one short-coming, he was not a political thinker, and hence could not evolve a philosophic conception of the state. He does not discuss the scope, jurisdiction, responsibilities and obligations of the state, gives no conception of sovereignty and seems to be completely ignorant of the idea of the constitution. Lack of a constitutional theory has not only very much reduced the value of Al-Mawardi’s work but has its deadening effect on the later development of Islamic political thought.

Al-Mawardi seems to have no conception of democracy. His theory of election dealing only with the appointment of the Caliph is wholly undemocratic. Moreover, he is very particular about the rights and prerogatives of the Caliph but pays little attention to the rights and obligations of the people. Lack of the idea of fundamental rights of men has been one of the principal sores in Muslim polity for ages, and has been mainly responsible for almost complete absence of the growth of democratic life in Muslim lands.

of 111


Al-Mawardi’s Theory of State

Caliphate:The institution of Caliphate represents the mission of Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H) the Prophet and the main duties of the Caliph are the safeguard of religion from all destructive propaganda and innovations and the proper organization of general polity. The Holy Quran aims at creating an ideal society in which good predominantly prevails over evil and in which the laws of God are generally practiced and obeyed. Further, it promises the inheritance or possession and governance of the earth to those only who follow in the footsteps of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) and practice piety and do justice.

When the Muslims built a world empire and actual needs arose, they tackled all these issues and tried to reach definite conclusions on all of them in the light of Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran is silent on all these pertinent issues, because their meaning is ever changing with the historical evolution. Besides, the Quran does not aim at creating a state but a society. Syed Qutab was of the view, “Whatever the form and shape of the state, if the Quranic society is realized in it, it may bear the designation of the Islamic State.” The Quran says, “Obey God and obey the Prophet (P.B.U.H) and the Uli-al-Amr from amongst you.” It also commands the Prophet (P.B.U.H) to take the counsel of the Muslims in matters of state.

The Muslim jurists are of the opinion that the institution of the Caliphate is not necessitated by a clear injunction in the Quran but by the consensus of opinion, it is obvious that the matter is left to the discretion and judgment of the Muslim community. The Quran is very clear and definite about all fundamental problems for instance, about the articles of faith, the forms of religious worship, laws of matrimony and inheritance, distribution of booty of war, prohibition of interest, rights and obligations of husband and wife etc., but omits all details about the form and constitution of the Caliphate; and this is deliberate, because the wisdom of God knows better that the social and political constitutions of men are ever changing and evolving with the march of time.

The second fundamental source of political speculation was the Sunnah. And because the jurists failed to get sufficient material in the Quran to construct a detailed political theory, they spent greater pains in exploring the Sunnah and the archives of early Islamic History to realize their purpose. And not only traditions of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) but also of the companions and successors were complied.

The forty years of the Pious Caliphate rightly represented the true spirit of Islamic polity. Although the structure of the Caliphate was brutally shaken during the regime of Hazrat Usman (R.A) and finally cracked during the reign of Hazrat Ali (R.A), its basic principle remained permanent and operative. These principles are as follows:

of 111


1. The aim of Islamic State is to create a society as conceived in the Quran and Sunnah.

2. The State shall enforce the Shariah as the fundamental laws of the state.

3. The sovereignty rests in the people. The people can set up any form of the government conforming to the above two principles and with the exigencies of time and environment.

4. Whatever the form of the government may be, it must be upon the principle of popular representation, because based sovereignty belongs to the people.

Muslims in early Islam were not beguiled by sophisticated notions of Caliphs as presented by later theologians and jurists. To them it was crystal clear the source of all temporal authority were the people and the people alone. The ideas of absolution of the Caliph and of divine right were entirely foreign to them. There was no written constitution as the modern constitutions. The Quran and Sunnah did not specifically demand the necessity of a state. And at any rate the conception of the state was never clear. It was on account of this that the Umayyad and Hashimite race for supremacy of power started immediately after the device of the Prophet (P.B.U.H). After the fall of the Pious Caliphate, the idea of democratic caliphate passed into monarchical system without any ideological conflict. (Ibn-e-Khaldoon)

The Umayyad made strenuous efforts and effected a practical compromise between monarchy and the original caliphate. They however, took pains to preserve the original pattern of succession b y nomination and limited election within the House of Umayyad. This Umayyad innovation received general approval and became an established principle of Islamic polity for alter times.

Wazarat:Al-Mawardi says, “the appointment of a Wazir does not mean that the Imam or Caliph should give up all connections with the administration of the state, but the real significance of his appointment consists of the fact that in the province of politics it is better to have a coadjutor rather than one sole person at the helm of affairs.” And when the Prophet Moses (A.S) could make his brother Haroon (A.S) his Wazir in order that his hands should be strengthened, then surely in the administration of the state it is allowable for the Imam to have a Wazir beside him. Al-Mawardi says that Wazarat is of two kinds:

1. The Wazarat of Delegation:The Wazir of Delegation is the person in whom the Imam has the fullest confidence and to whom the powers of administration of the realm are delegated. The difference between the Wazir and the Imam himself is that the Wazir of Delegation is not empowered to appoint anyone as his successor and the Imam, the highest authority; can dismiss the officers appointed by him.

of 111


2. The Wazarat of Execution:The Wazir of Execution is similar to the Secretary to the Government in modern times. Al-Mawardi says that the main function of the Wazir is to get the decrees of the Imam executed and he should be the main official channel of information for him. Mawardi opines that, seven qualities are required for a person aspiring to this office and these are honesty, confidence, absence of greed, good relationship with the people, intelligence and the wisdom of grasping the truth of things, absence of luxury and amorousness, and lastly, diplomacy and experience. Al-Mawardi said, “It is not necessary that the holder of the office should be a follower of Islam and a non-Muslim dhimmi can also be appointed a Wazir of Execution."

For the efficient functioning of the administration, the government should be divided into various departments dealing with the business of government such as revenue, army and other high offices of State. The State administration as a whole was called Diwan. Al-Mawardi enumerated four chief offices of Government are under:

1. The Army Board2. The Board of Provincial Boundaries3. The Treasury4. The Board of Appointment and Dismissal of Officers

Views of Central Government:Al-Mawardi being an orthodox Shafi’ite, gave an account of legal rationalism in his writings. Very rationally he makes full endeavors to demonstrate the necessity of the Imamate and he proves it not only by referring the Islamic law but lays down a general proposition that it is in the nature of man or rather those among men who are superior to others in intellect that they should hand over their affairs to one who can keep them from being tyrannized over by others and should have the power of adjudging between them in case of mutual quarrels.

Al-Mawardi relies solely upon the Quran without reference to any other source of law. Thus when he tries to demonstrate that the Imam should not indulge in luxurious living and he reminds the readers of the order which God gave to the Prophet David (A.S) when He appointed him His Caliph: “O David, We have appointed thee Our Caliph on earth; so judge aright between man and man, and follow not desires that might lead thee away from the path of thy Lord.”

He at the time of discussing different categories of taxes, argues entirely on the basis of the Quran, and quotes a verse to prove that the Zakat should be distributed “among the poor and the needy, and those who collect them and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of God and for the wayfarer” (Quran ix, 60).

of 111


Along with the verses of the Quran he argues from the order of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) as related in the Traditions when he wishes to prove that the Caliph has the right to appoint his own successor, he argues from the battle of Mutah and says, “The Prophet (P.B.U.H) appointed his manumitted slave, Hazrat Zaid bin Harithah, to take his place at the head of the Muslim army and at the same time ordered that is case of his death he should be replaced by Hazrat Jafar bin Ali Talib, after him Hazrat Abdullah bin Rawahah and in case he is also killed, the mantle of command should fall on the shoulders of whomever the soldiers might choose.” Mawardi was of the view that “it was possible for the Prophet (P.B.U.H) to make these nominations; it should be possible in case of khilafat as well.”

As regards the office of Qazi, he quotes the instructions given by the Caliph Hazrat Umar to Hazrat Abu Musa al Ash’ari when he appointed him to this office. Sometimes al-Mawardi uses the documents of the Umayyad and the Abbasid periods his premises, for instance, he quotes the accession address of Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz to demonstrate the exalted ideals of the office of the Caliph. Whenever he wants to stress the importance of the Wazarat, he quotes a proclamation of Mamun where he declares that he wishes to appoint one of his ministers who should be virtuous, sophisticated and conservative in his habits, experienced and matured in his profession and willing to undertake the most difficult missions, should be reliable and trustworthy, whose silence should signify his great indulgence and whose conversation should demonstrate his great knowledge. He should be able to understand the innermost thoughts of others by the mere gesture of the eyes, and even a second’s conversation should suffice for him to get at the root of the matter, who should have the posture of the rich, the foresight of the learned, the humility of the savant and the acuteness of the jurist, who should be grateful for any good that might be done to him and should bear his troubles with patience. __________________

of 111


Theory of Rebellion

Introduction:Even in the ancient and medieval tribal and monarchical systems it was recognized that if the monarch ruled with tyranny and inequity, the people had a right to overthrow him and choose a new leader in his place. The act of rebellion in such an eventuality was not regarded as a crime but as a vindication of the fundamental rights of people.

After the ascendancy of Islam, it brought about a complete revolution in human thought and knowledge. Islam combined politics with religion in a remarkable way that it was susceptible to reason and most conducive to human relations. It defined the proper dignity and status of men in this universe, his relations and obligations to God, and His privileges as the Lord of creation. It taught for the first time the ideas of universal brotherhood and complete equality of men. It demolished the artificial barriers of color and creed and brought the poor and the rich at one platform. The great republic of Madina was built on the highest and purest ideals of democracy. The only sad thing about this was that it was too short-lived and that it could not get time for proper growth and consolidation. The consequences of the premature demise of the Republic of Madina were dire and far-reaching. The fast developing ideals of Islamic democracy were blasted and superseded by the imperialistic systems of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids and others. A struggle began between the State and Society. The society tried to reflect the principles of Islamic life and polity, while the state tried to emulate the traditions and ways of Byzantine and Sassanid empires. For one hundred years of Umayyad rule the struggle between these two forces continued. But when Abbasids came into power, it signaled the victory of the State polity over religious ideology. The emperor or Caliph became the spiritual and temporal head of the state, his wishes and whims became law, and he was responsible to none. The people living under his cruel subjugation had no right of resistance or revolt.

The Muslim jurists, political thinkers, statesmen and diplomats invented a political theory which affected a superficial and sophisticated compromise between the two forces. The compromise was given religious sanctity and justification, so that it became permanent and unchallengeable.

Al-Mawardi’s Views:Al-Mawardi is greatly influenced by the political ideas of his age. He discards the divine right of rule, for despite his anxiety for the restoration of sovereign power of Abbasid Caliphs, he nowhere supports their claim, or the claim of jurists to unchallenged obedience to the Head of the State.

1. Al-Mawardi quotes the following tradition from Abu Hurairah: the Prophet (P.B.U.H) said, “After me there will be appointed rulers over you, and both the good as well as bad deeds

of 111


will go by them; but you must obey the orders from them that is based upon righteousness; for if they rule with fairness the good of it will occur to them and to you both, if they rule with inequity you will get the benefit of it and they, the evil consequences thereof.”

2. Al-Mawardi clearly advocates revolt when the Imam either falls prey to sensual passions or becomes sceptic of the basic tenets of Islam. But it is ambiguous as to how a tyrant or heretical Imam can be deposed. No method has been proposed by means of which the will of the people may be ascertained, or the Imam may be expelled his office. There is no precedent in Islamic history when an Imam was deposed from office by legal and proper means. And since the Imam is the executive Head of the State, and not responsible to any Majlis or Tribunal, it is obvious that he cannot sit to impeach himself or allow others to punish him.

One thing is quite clear from the writings of Al-Mawardi, that he is opposed to the claim of undisputed obedience to the Caliph. He does not elaborate a detailed theory of rebellion, nor discusses the fundamental rights of man. He is very careful in choosing only those traditions which suit his purpose. He could have easily established from the tradition of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) as well as from the practice of the Pious Caliphs, that Islam has given an open charter of rights to humanity, and that it has unambiguously defined limits of State’s powers and freedom of the individual.

He could have noted that the famous verse of the Quran, “Obey God, and obey the Prophet (P.B.U.H), and obey the ruler who is from amongst you,” (Al-Quran, 4: 58) does not give license of despotism to rulers, for the same verse continues, “if you quarrel on any issue, bring it to the judgment of God and the Prophet (P.B.U.H), provided you believe in God and in the day of Judgment.” Obedience to the head of the State is bound by the condition that he obeys the injunctions of God, that is, rules with truth and justice. In another verse the Quran says, “Their affairs are decided by mutual counsel amongst themselves" (Al-Quran, 42: 38) and not by the arbitrary will of a ruler.

Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A) reported that the Prophet (P.B.U.H) said, “Indeed if the people see evil and do not rise to ward it off, it is just probable that the vengeance of God may overtake them all.” Abu Said narrated that the Prophet (P.B.U.H) said, “Some of the most loved and nearest persons to me on the Day of Judgment shall be the Just Imam, and the most hated and damnable person to me on the Day of Judgment shall be the Tyrant Imam.”

When Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A) was elected Caliph, he said in his policy speech: “Obey me as long as I obey God, but when I disobey Him you are no longer bound to obey me.” He continued the speech and said, “And I am just like one of you so when you find me on the right path, follow me, but if you see me diverting, set me right.”

In the early phases of Islamic history, there were a general and strong feelings among the Muslims that there existed a solemn covenant between the State and people, that the State was conducted by the elected representatives of the people, and that it existed only to protect and

of 111


promote their interests. So when the rulers broke this covenant, and violated the principle of representation and threw overboard the interest of the people, the people thought it as their inherent right to repeal such rulers and grab political power from them. It was the clear infringement of this covenant that eventually led to the assassinations of Hazrat Usman (R.A) and Hazrat Ali (R.A) and also to the sudden collapse of the powerful Umayyads. The Abbasid Caliphs fetched the reign of the Islamic empire, killed these ideas altogether and the concept of the covenant was completely forgotten.

Conclusion:Al-Mawardi did not elaborate a theory of rebellion and if he wanted to propound a theory, he could have found abundant sanction for it in early thought and practice. It may be noted here that the idea of rebellion has always been most abhorrent to Muslim rulers throughout history, because after the regime of the Pious Caliphs, many a ruler denied the right of the people to participate in the affairs of the State. But there is no denying the fact that the people resented the autocratic trends in the statecraft and stood for their basic rights. __________________

of 111


Muslim Political Thought---Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi

Introduction:Khawaja Abu Ali Hasan bin Ali bin Ishaq widely known in history of Islamic political thought as Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi. He was born in 1017 AD. Nizam-ul-Mulk was not his real name. it was a title of honor conferred upon him by his Saljuqi ruler, Alp Arslan, after his appointment as minister. His father, Abu al-Hasan Ali belonged to a family of landowners of Radhkan, a small town in the suburn of Tus, where Nizam-ul-Mulk was born.

His elementary education started with the study of Traditions and Jurisprudence and his father wanted him to take up the legal profession, so consequently he was put under the scholarly guidance of Al-Samad Funduraji, who was a profound scholar of Law of his age. Tusi traveled to Bukhara and Merv, and also to a number of towns in Transoxiana in search and employment. After 1049 he went to Ghaznah, where he sought service with Ghaznawids, thus having an opportunity to acquaint himself with their state administration. When Sultan Abdul Rashid was killed in 1052 and with his demise, the political situation ion the country became aggravated and in the hours of turmoil and confusion, he fled to Balkh and entered the service of Ali bin Shadhan who was the governor of that province. Then he went to Merv and there Chaghari Beg appointed him the mushir (counselor) of the katib (secretary) of his son, Alp Arslan. It was Alp Arslan who conquered all the territories of Western Asia till then ruled by the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine, imprisoning Emperor Diogenes himself and forcing him to pay tribute to the Islamic state.

Later on the advice of Ali bin Shadhan that Alp Arslan after his accession to the throne in 1062, Nizam-ul-Mulk was appointed as a joint Minister with Amin-ul-Mulk Kunduri. But Kunduri was soon put to death. Then Tusi became the full-fledged Prime Minister of the whole empire with the succession of Malik Shah to his father’s throne in 1072, which he owed entirely to Nizam-ul-Mulk’s efforts. From the capital of Saljuqs, his influence spread to the capital of the Abbasid Caliph, who is said to have honored him with the titles of Radi-ulAmir al Muminin. Sherwani was of the view that during his term of offices he was showered with all kinds of honorific titles and dignities both by his master, Alp Arslan and Malik Shah, and by the titular Caliph of Baghdad, Al-Qaim, and as if these titles would not suffice to connote the qualities of the man, the great divine of the period, Imam-ul- Haramain Sheikh Abdul Malik-I Jawaini added a number of other distinctions to his honorific titles.

In his last days he came into collision with the Ismailyah movement of Hasan bin Sabah, in whose activities he saw danger to the Saljuq Empire. Nizam-ul-Mulk was cruelly assassinated by one of Fidais (the Assassins) in 1091 AD.

Nizam-ul-Mulk’s Persian works are the chief inspiring sources for the study of his political of 111


ideas:

1. Siyasat Namah or Siyar-ul-Mulk (The book on State polity and administration)

2. Dastur-al-Wuzara (The conduct of Ministers). It is more generally known as the Wasaya-i-Khawaja Nizam-ul-Mulk (The precepts of Khawaja Nizam-ul-Mulk)

3. Nizam-ul-Mulk is said to have written a book entitled as Safar Namah (The book of Travels) which is now extinct.

Contribution of Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi to Islamic Political Thought

An age of Political Turmoil:Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi lived in a dark age of political warfare and constant conflict among the political demagogues to grab power which has witnessed the lower degradation of the Caliphate, following its transformation during a period of three centuries from a democracy into autocracy and then from autocracy into a mere puppetry in the hands of powerful aristocrats and wazirs. This also saw the decline of the Ghaznawids Empire and the Bhwaihid kingdom and the emergence of the Suljuqs after their victory over the Ghaznawids in 1040 when their nomadic and wandering life changed into the cultured race who ruled over vast gigantic empire. It was an age of radical change and fusion of social and political ideas and institutions, specifically in the Muslim world in which Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi lived and worked relentlessly.

Contribution of Nizam-ul-Mulk:This is an admitted fact that Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi wielded a profound influence on the succeeding generations by making valuable contributions to the history of political thought. He was an irrepressible advocate of natural rights of individuals and he ardently championed their cause to give liberty and freedom but with restrictions to show respect and regard to the rulers. He did away with the stagnant politics and despotic conspiracies of palaces and became responsible for heralding a new era of political consciousness.

It is sufficient to know the ideas contained in the Siyasat Namah came from the prominent Prime Minister of the Saljuqis and are the ones accepted by his master Jalal-ud-Din Malik Shah as the constitutional code of his extensive empire. In his immortal political works, Siyasat Namah, he discussed at length all evils and ills of politics of his age and he aptly suggested remedies in order to avoid all kinds of destructive tendencies among the states. His foreign policy was a great success, and he maintained cordial relations among his neighboring states.

of 111


His work was a valuable constitution of his country, and his contributions not only became advantageous in his era but also greatly influenced the later period. the book was compiled nearly a thousand years ago, when the House of Abbasids was tottering, the power was declining, and the days of the Eastern Empire of Constantinople were nearing their end, and India got a miserable shock and set-back due to perennial internal dissentions and conflicts, the ailment of the caste system and the threats of a permanent conquests by outsiders. Sherwani pays tribute to Tusi in these words, “It is to the great credit of Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi that in the dark and uncertain epoch, he sat down to write a book which was as useful to a seeker of political truth in our own times as it was to his contemporaries. He freely takes his cue from the non-Arabic and non-Muslim sources. In fact he amrks an epoch in the history of Eastern learning and arts, for he was an expert in the arts and sciences of his day, a faithfully counselor of his patron and his eminent son, a friend of the great Persian astronomer-poet, Umar Khayyam, founder of the Nizamiyah University and its branches, and a martyr at the hands of a murderer, in a word he rose to such eminence that the whole continent of Asia may well take a prides in his personality and his work.”

of 111


Theory of Kingship

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi served many kings and he profoundly studied the monarchical system of government developing under the aristocratic rule of prince, as against the constitutional structure of the Caliphate which was delicately interwoven since the ascendancy of Islam. His political theory represents a phase of the development of the Muslim polity which was characterized by kingship. The first thing distinguishable about his exposition of the institution of kingship is that he is careful to make no reference to the Caliph as the head of the Muslim political community, and to remark nothing about the constitutional relations of the Saljuq enter with the Abbasid Caliphs. He very often uses the title of Sultan for the Saljuq king. And as for the term Amir Mustauli (Governor by usurpation) it does not occur at all throughout his writings, both being the terms of the constitutional law employed by the jurists to denote the legal superiority of the Caliph over the prince. He generally calls his ruler as Padshah, a Persian term used for the king.

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi had to surmount all difficulties in regard to the coordination of Islamic principles in which he had an implicit belief with the Perso-Turkish thought and practice in politics in rogue, and it is unnecessary to indulge in controversy about the powers of the two offices. It is curious that the reason for the establishment of the kingly office as remarked by him should be identical with the set-up of the Imamat as given by Mawardi, and it seems contradiction in terms that while trying to justify the hereditary king he should be using arguments already advanced in favor of an elected President. His theory is that the king enjoys the right to rule over his subjects by virtue of divine appointment.

“In every age God the Almighty selects some one from among men and gives over to him the charge of the well-being of the world and the comfort and tranquility of the human race after duly furnishing him with the art of government. He also makes him responsible for the peace and security of the land and endows him with all the necessary prestige in order that God’s creatures may live in peace and plenty and that justice and security may be the order of the day.” (Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi)

Functions of the King:

According to Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi the essential functions which the king has to fulfill in human society are the following:

1. It is the duty of a king to remain in constant consultation with the wisest, the most experienced and the most competent of his people and to repose confidence in such of his subjects as deserve it and delegate to them a part of his duties according to their merit and worth.

of 111


2. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi was of the view that the ultimate object to which the king must canalize his energy and initiative for maintaining peace and order in the state, so that the people may live with comfort under the shadow of his justice.

3. According to Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi, a king must issue an instrument of instructions to all his subordinate officers and governors of the states enjoining them to treat the people well and extract only the dues allowed by the law of the land.

4. Nizam-ul-Mulk’s prince must work for the collective good of his people, so that an era of prosperity and progress may usher. The sovereign must remember that God the Almighty is pleased with a king only when he treats his people with kindness and justice.

5. Tusi lays great emphasis on obedience as the most essential duty of the people towards the ruler, since he brings to them peace and prosperity after they have been deprived of it as a punishment for their obedience to God.

6. Tusi said that the people must blindly obey every order and instruction of the prince without questioning the validity of his authority. It is valid because it is de facto.

7. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi believed that “the king is endowed by God with wisdom and knowledge so that he can treat each of his subjects according to his worth and can give each a position according to his value. His wisdom is just like a lamp that gives off abundant light. People can find their way in its light and can come out of darkness.”

Tusi treats Prince as divinely appointed ruler, vested with unlimited powers; he does not regard him by any means as a law-giver. A human authority with absolute legislative powers has never existed in a true Muslim polity, because legislation in the proper sense of the term has never been recognized as a human function in the Muslim legal theory. According to this theory there already exists a divine law (Shariat) which is theoretically as binding on the ruler himself, however autocratic he may be in practice, as on his subjects. Tusi was of the view, “It is obligatory for the king to seek knowledge of religious matters and to comply with and make arrangements to carry out the commands of God and the traditions of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) and to pay due respect to religious scholars.”

Religion and politics are inseparably joined together, and are complementary to each other. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi said, “The state and religion are like two brothers.” The principles of conduct which he lays down for the king under the influence of this religious trend are in striking contrast with those prescribed by Machiavelli for his “Prince”. Unlike the Machiavellian Prince who is advised to handle religion merely as a useful instrument for achieving political ends, and who is taught to appear rather than become religious. But Nizam-ul-Mulk’ Prince is taught to believe sincerely in religious truths, and to exercise political power as an essential means of attaining them. He emphasizes the importance of religious character of the king’s authority and it tones down the autocratic attitude of his monarch. The moral obligations he sets on the absolute

of 111


authority of the king prevent it from growing into an oppressive despotism. The first and foremost obligation of the king towards his subjects is to do justice. He firmly believes it to be a religious duty, for it has been ordained by Almighty God. Justice, as a principle of good government, occupies a predominant place in his concept of kingship, and time and again, he lays emphasis on its importance for state and society. “A state can continue to exist notwithstanding impiety, but it cannot exist with tyranny.” (Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi)

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi is greatly impressed by the Persian standards of justice that he believes that “Sassanian kings, especially Nushirwan the Just, have surpassed all other monarchs in justice, generosity and courage.” He was of the view that “The king should strive to seek the favor of God, which can be attained through the kindness with which they treat the people and through justice which they administer to them. When the people pray for the welfare of the king, his state grows stable and prospers everyday.” __________________

of 111


Muslim Political Thought---Al-Ghazali

Al-Ghazali

Introduction:Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad, surnamed al-Imam-ul-Jalilm, Hujjat-ul-Islam and Zainuddin, was born at Ghazzalah near Tus in 1058. He is one of the greatest and distinguished original philosophers not only in the history of Muslim philosophy but also in the history of human thought. He was educated at Tus proper in the early years of his career and later on he shifted to Jurjan, and then finally migrated to Nishapur to imbibe wisdom and philosophy by sitting at the feet of perhaps the most versatile genius of his time, Abul-Maali Muhammad al-Juwaini Imam-ul-Haramain, who was invited back from Hijaz to preside over one of the great colleges founded by Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi. He was accepted first as the pupil and the assistant by the Imam. Al-Ghazali won great fame and prominence because his philosophical doctrines and consequently as a great sage of the age, he was called to the court of Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi while still in his twenties. He was the intellectual adviser and chief canonist till 1091 when he was formally appointed to the great foundation of Baghdad.Al-Ghazali was aptly considered a mujaddid and reckoned at par with the four Imams. There have been many philosophers and scholars in Islam and other religions, but the distinct caliber of one of great philosophers ushered a unique era of knowledge of his age. He left behind indelible impressions because of his immortal works and philosophical-cum-political doctrines which have still influence upon this modern age. In 1095, he had discontinued his work of teaching in Baghdad. His mind continually in a state of doubt, probably found no satisfaction in dogmatic predictions. Sherwani said, “Baghdad did not see very much of Ghazali and it seems that deep thought, coupled with murder of his patron Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi and the death of Malik Shah in 1092, all these things had a tremendous effect on his psychology.”For about ten years, in the period of utter disillusionment, Al-Ghazali extensively traveled here and there to imbibe wisdom and intellect from every source, dividing his time between pious exercises and literary work. Al-Ghazali remained in fretful years because of state politics which took a serious turn. He died in Tus on 19th of December, 1111. His closing years were chiefly devoted to pious contemplation and the study of the Traditions, which as a youth he could never remember. A beautifully complete and rounded life in which the end comes back to the beginning.

Principle political works of Al-Ghazali are as follows:

1. Munqidh Min ad-Dalal (Deliverance from Waywardness)2. Ihya-ul-Ulam (Renaissance of Sciences)3. Tibr-ul-Masbuk (Molten Gold)4. Sirr-ul-Alamain (The Mystery of the Two Worlds)5. Fatihat-ul-Ulum (Introduction to Sciences)6. Kimiya-i-Sa’adat (Alchemy of Goodness)7. Iqtisad Fil-I’tiqad (Moderation in Belief)8. Kitab-ul-Wajiz (a hand book of Fiqah, canon law)

of 111


Contribution of Al-Ghazali to Islamic Political Thought

Al-Ghazali is undoubtedly an outstanding and remarkable political scholar in Islam. His philosophy is an expression of his own personality. He abandoned the attempt to understand this world. But the religious problem he comprehended much more profoundly than did the philosophers of his time. Dr. T. T. Debeer said, “These were intellectuals in their methods, like their Greek predecessors, and consequently regarded the doctrines of Religion as merely the products of the conception of fancy or even caprice of the law givers. According to them Religion was either blind obedience, or a kind of knowledge which contained truth of an inferior order. On the other hand, Al-Ghazali represents Religion as the experience of his inner being; it is for him more than Law and more than Doctrine, it is the Soul’s experience.”

Al-Ghazali’s philosophical analysis, logical positivism and religious empiricism have profoundly influenced every age of philosophy and religion and even today, modern student of the political history seeks inspiration in solving all philosophical and political inquiries. His liberalism and intellectualism completely dominated Western Philosophy and even Western thinkers preserved main elements of his great philosophy in their works. Europe, about the end of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth century of the Christian era, was in the abyss of degradation and political degeneration. This period is dubbed by one of the greatest of modern political scientists as “essentially unpolitical”.

In the contemporary age of Al-Ghazali, Europe was engulfed in perpetual controversy between Pope and the Emperor. This controversy led to political cleavage and intransigents and wreckers mutilated all traits of progress and prosperity. There was nothing but blood, destruction and wars, which snapped all resources and economy. Poverty and wrangling had become regular features of the day. At that time, East was at the pinnacle of glory and progress.

It is certainly difficult to agree with unfounded and sweeping statement of Hitti that Al-Ghazali constructed such a scholastic shell for Islam that all its future progress became arrested within it. If the progress of the West consisted as it is said in breaking a similar shell within context of his own religion then quite a few hammer strokes therein were wrought by the hands of the Muslim thinkers of which the uppermost hand was the hand of Al-Ghazali. This anybody might see for himself by making a close study of Al-Ghazali’s influence on the West.

Al-Ghazali as a great savant was decidedly superior to some of those who had gone before him. For while he had become conversant with the working of the political system when he was attending the court of his patron, Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi, Prime Minister of Suljuqi Kings, Al-Ghazali, while living in such surroundings had made a close study of the problems of politics. It was his efforts to leave off his luxurious life and write most of his works from a mental point of

of 111


vantage in Syria or Arabia or else in the seclusion of his paternal hearth and home. Al-Ghazali is definitely superior to Al-Mawardi in being analytical as well as comparative in his arguments.

Sherwani was of the view that “A student of the history of political theories is aware of the great gap which seems to exist between the decline of Roman thought about the beginning of Christian era till about the thirteenth century, when thought seems dull, constitutions unscientific and people lethargic and pleasure-loving. Knowledge would be the richer and chains of thought more continuous if that artificial blank were to be filled by such giants of wisdom as Mawardi, Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi and Al-Ghazali. Even in oriental thought, Al-Ghazali’s place is certain. His greatness lies partly in having successfully refilled the desired outlined by brilliant Islamic colors, although they were not destined to last very long, giving place once again, and finally to barbaric hues.”

of 111


“Amir” of Al-Ghazali

Al-Ghazali, a political philosopher, renowned in East and West because of his versatile genius, harnessed his thoughts into a proper channel for an efficient and systematic government in order to bring about progress and peace in the state. He appears to be particular about the duties and functions of the sovereign, so that administration of the state must not become unwieldy and dogmatic. He enumerates the necessary qualities of an ideal ruler, and reverently expresses that he should have intellect, knowledge, perception, right proportion of things, chivalry, loves for his subjects, diplomatic bend, foresight, strong will-power and must be well informed of the news of the day and the past history of the kings. He must learn the lesson from the past kings. He should n ot repeat the errors and failures of his predecessors. Amir must also vigilantly watch that his judges, secretaries, viceroys and other officers did their work well, it is chiefly in these qualities which go to make a ruler the shadow of God on earth.

Al-Ghazali relates how a learned man once told the great Caliph, Harun-ar-Rashid, to beware that he was sitting where Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) once sat and be truthful, where Hazrat Umar (R.A.) once sat and differentiate between right and wrong, where Hazrat Usman (R.A.) once sat and be modest and bountiful, where Hazrat Ali (R.A.) once sat and be knowing and just. He puts forward the case of the Apostle of Islam, who himself fed his cattle, tied his camel, swept his house, milked his goat, mended his shoes, patches his clothes, took meals with his servants, ground his own corn in time of need and did his own marketing.

Daily Routines and Duties of “Amir”

Al-Ghazali says that the daily routines of an Amir should be following:

1. The Amir, after morning prayers, should go out riding in order to have investigation in person about wrongs done to his subject.2. He should then sit in court and permit all and sundry to have a direct access so that he might have first-hand information about any complaints.3. The ruler should make a point of taking advice from simple men of knowledge, intelligence and experience.4. The ruler must extend interviews to foreign ambassadors and envoys. He should be well-versed in diplomacy and politics.5. Al-Ghazali strictly warns the Amir against too much indulgence in drink, chess or hunting and says that the best mode of simple life be practiced.6. The Amir and good kings should used to divide their time in four parts, setting apart one for prayers, another for state affairs, justice and counsel of the learned about the affairs of the state, the third for food and rest, and the last for recreation and hunting.

of 111


7. He is very particular that the Amir should not pay head to the advice offered by his women favorites, and quotes the instance of Umar who actually divorced his favorite wife when he was elated to his exalted office for fear of being influenced by her in state affairs.8. Al-Ghazali warns that the ruler must not show them any favoritism, but instead must appoint nepotism or people on merits.

Rosenthal said, “Al-Ghazali proceeds to enumerate the virtues by which the Imam must be distinguished in order to lead men entrusted to his care to the goal which the Sharia has set for men. Although we meet with the qualifications stipulated by Al-Mawardi they are partly modified to meet the general political situation and the particular case of Al-Mustazhir. Ability to wage jihad is conditioned by the possession of power and courage. It has always been considered one of the foremost duties of the Caliph. But Al-Ghazali faced with a young Caliph and a powerful Seljuq master, explains away its absence in Al-Mustazhir by pointing to the Shawka, the force and power of the Seljuqs which guarantees the najda required of the Caliph. He wants to think of them not as independent rulers but as the loyal servants of the Caliph.”

Simplicity of the “Amir”:

Al-Ghazali persistently lays stress that the ruler should be simple in his habits. He says that the Amir should have a limited source of income which does not provide him possible opportunity to indulge in luxury and debauchery. He says that Amir must spend his life according to the income at his disposal, and should not abundantly and lavishly spend so that the economy of the country may not be disturbed. Al-Ghazali quotes the Apostle that God would be kind and compassionate to rulers who are themselves meek and kind to their people. He regards Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz as a model of justice, equality and simplicity, who once wanted his monthly salary in advance to buy the Eid clothes for his daughters but desisted from drawing it from the state treasury because he was reminded by Finance Minister that there was no certainty of his living for the month for which he wished to draw his pay.

Oppression and tyranny was normally the salient feature of king’s life and the ruler had to become totalitarian in order to create effective subjugation over the people. Complete arrest from freedom and political subjugation were the normal orders of the day. But the sages of ages became the source of instrumental change of destinies. They played a vital role in liberating the people from enslavement and cruel yoke. Beyond any praise such was the greatness of Al-Ghazali in those fretful days that in spite of the great honor bestowed upon him, he replied that he did not want anything from any of God’s creatures.

“In spite of those lofty ideals, Al-Ghazali seems to have rightly realized that time had changed since the early days of Islam, and besides honest work there was something else, a certain amount of prestige which is wanted to exert a psychological influence on the people and keep law and order in the hand, and he would desist from doing anything which might result in the disintegration of the state through the lack of these factors.” (Sherwani) __________________

of 111


Muslim Political Thought---Ibn-e-Khaldoon

Ibn-e-Khaldoon

Introduction:Abu Zaid Abd-al-Rahman Ibn-e-Khaldoon, the North African Muslim of the 14th century, was undoubtedly the first to introduce a most scientific method in the political study of the history of human civilization. He is distinguished for considering history as a science worthy of study and not merely a narration of facts. Ibn-e-Khaldoon belonged to an Andalusian family which had migrated from Seville to Tunis on the expulsion of Moors on the conquest of Spain by Ferdinand III of Castile. It was one of these humble families that Ibn-e-Khaldoon was born in 1332, and he raised to be a man of remarkable knowledge as well as of profound historical and political acumen, perhaps the first scientific historian of world and one who has left an indelible mark on the sciences of historiography and sociology.During fourteenth century, Tunis was the cradle of learning and knowledge. Young Ibn-e-Khaldoon took full advantage of the scholastic opportunities which were abundantly available there. He learnt the Quran by heart, studied the Traditions and Maliki Jurisprudence, as well as Arabic Grammar and Rhetoric from eminent scholars and by dint of his sharp diligence and intellect, he was taken in service at the age of twenty by the ruler of Tunis, Abu Ishaq II. The restless spirit that was in him made him roam about from one capital to another, now secretary of state of Fez, then crossing the straits of Gibraltar as a fief holder of Muhammad bin Yousaf, Sultan of Granada, later as the head of a political mission to Pedro the Cruel, king of Castile who was staying at his ancestral town of Seville. Then he moved on to the court of the Prince of Bejaya near Constantine. In 1374, he again went to Granada but it was not long before he was expelled back to Africa.After returning Africa he was tired and weary of perennial wanderings and he took refuge in African Desert and compiled his world-famed Prolegomena giving finishing touches to it about the middle of 1377, after which he returned to his native town of Tunis a quarter of a century after he had left it. In 1382 he went to Cairo where he lived the rest of his life. At Egypt, he occupied a distinct position and high status as a Chief Justice a number of times and during the intervals, he used to deliver lectures. He died as judge in Cairo on March 17, 1406. He was reverently buried in Sufi Cemetery outside Cairo’s Nasr Gate. He was a versatile genius, a great philosopher and a man of strong convictions of his age, who wielded an abysmal influence on the posterity.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon made great contributions in the field of knowledge and learning and his works are still widely read by every student of political philosophy. He gave us the following works:

1. Kitab-al-Ibrar…..It is a universal history written in seven volumes, the introduction to this work entitled Muqaddamah, extensive enough to take the whole of the first volume. It was about the author’s views with regard to the nature and method of history.2. al-Taarif3. Histroy of the Berbers

of 111


Contribution of Ibn-e-Khaldoon to Islamic Political Thought

Ibn-e-Khaldoon wielded a deep influence on his succeeding political philosophers due to his systematic study of political theory in a dark age, when political discussion meant nothing more than a rough and ready formulation of the functions of the ruler. Almost all the eminent western philosophers like Machiavelli, Boding, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Hegel and Marx were profoundly influenced by his political theory composed in his immortal work “Muqaddamah” which extensively deals with a great variety of subjects. Ibn-e-Khaldoon was greatly reverenced as a sage of the age and his contemporaries envied him for his steadfastness and political acumen for combating political abuses and ills that prevailed in all ages of thoughts and philosophies. He left behind a treasure of knowledge which will work as a store-house for the posterities.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon discussed various Islamic political institutions in the light of the history of the early Islamic state. He made political enquiries into the various historical events of the early period of Islam with impartiality and analytical mind of jurist. He upholds the practicability of Islamic laws in the state and considers the Sharia state as definitely superior to the Power state. He contemplates little of the Siyast Madaniya for he considers the philosophers ideal state as the visionary product of utopian thought, having no relation with historical facts. The ideal for him is the Islamic state as it existed under the first four Caliphs. But his empiricism is manifest in his analysis of the Muslim empires of his own day. In his political thinking, it is Islam that emerges as the sole objective for all human endeavors.

Mohsin Mahdi says, “The biographical, stylistic and doctrinal evidence introduced in this study establish this point beyond any reasonable doubt. It has been shown that he articulately though cautiously, defended the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle against Neo-Platonism, atomism and logical nominalism; and that his study of Prophecy, the religious law and the character of the Islamic community prove that he was a true disciple of the Islamic Platonic tradition of political philosophy.”

Ibn-e-Khaldoon seems to be the only great thinker who not only saw the problems of the relation of the history and the science of society to traditional political philosophy but also made full endeavors to develop a science of society with the framework of political philosophy as based on its principles. According to Ibn-e-Khaldoon, traditional philosophy demands the study of man and society as they really are, and supplies the frame work of directing such a study and utilizing its results. Rosenthal was of the view that importance of Ibn-e-Khaldoon was not recognized in his own time, and until the seventeenth century did Muslims writers take any notice of him, while Europeans scholars discovered him only in the last century. Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s importance consists in a number of novel insights of permanent value and significance:

1. In his distinction between rural and urban life and the necessity of the latter for the emergence of civilization and a state in the strict sense of the term.

of 111


2. In his postulating the Asabiya as the principal driving force of political action.3. In his projection of Islam into a universal human civilization, thus standing on the social and in the climate of Islam and looking out towards humanity at large.4. In his realization of the casual interdependence of the several factors of social life in the power state; economic, military, cultural and religious.5. In the concept of the parallel existence of the state founded by a prophetic law-giver, as distinct from the state built on power in response to the human need for political association and the desire of strong personalities for domination.6. Arising from the last point, in his definition and analysis of the Islamic country, as a composite structure whose law is a mixture of Shariah and political law.7. In his basic recognition of the vital part which religion should play in the life of the state, especially if it transforms the Asabiya into a durable, cohesive and spiritual motive power.

of 111


Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s Historical Approach to the Political Science

With the ascendancy of Islam, historical literature got its birth and religious, moral and practical aspects of history were greatly stressed for the expansion of Islamic influence over the whole world. Muslims, by the inspiring source of history, are directed to contemplate the vicissitudes of earthly life, the rise and fall of the kingdoms and the Judgment of God upon the nations are revealed in their fortunes and misfortunes. As to the method they demand and command veracity and exactitude in transmitting historical information derived, whenever possible, from primary sources or eye-witnesses. With the expansion of Islam during the seventh-eighth centuries and the production of a vast and varied historical literature, the seeds of historical thought contained in the Holy Quran and the sayings of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H).

History as a profession started in Islam with the search for and the collection and transmission of individual reports about specific events. These reports were first transmitted orally and when written records were gradually introduced, these were accepted at first merely as aids to memory. The historians took pains to learn about, and ascertain the competence of the authorities who transmitted these reports and used the science of biography (Ilm al-rijal) and of authority criticism (al-jarh wal-tadil) as their main tools. Tabri, a famous Muslim historian, was of the view that history is not a rational discipline and that human reason does not play significant role in it.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s Views on History:Ibn-e-Khaldoon had seen considerable political ordeals and vicissitudes, and he fully knew that a number of states quite distinct in culture, dialect, historical environments and administration were destroyed under the wheels of time and fully realized the factors responsible for the rise and fall of Islamic states. The methods of argument that he adapts to a large extent, is analytical but he does not fail to supplement it with historical data. Ibn-e-Khaldoon also considered history as a science. The aim of history for him is not merely to narrate the stories of kings, queens and dynasties or prepare the chronicles of war and pacts among states but to describe the facts of vise and fall of human civilization. It is essentially the record of human society, its growth and decay, under different geographical, economic, political, religious and other cultural conditions.

Laws of Sociology:Ibn-e-Khaldoon was undoubtedly a sociologically minded historian. He was conscious of the originality of his work and claimed himself to be discoverer for the first time of the laws of national progress and decay. The sociological laws operate with regard to masses only and would not be significantly determined with reference to single individuals, for the individual’s own attitudes and beliefs are considerably conditioned by the social environment in which they are placed.

Historical Approach to the Science of Politics:

of 111


His political theory developed as part of his description of human civilization. Ibn-e-Khaldoon held that all political institutions are closely associated to the socio-economic conditions of a time and that they are quite at in with the environments of a particular age, both mental and physical. That is why he makes political enquiries pertaining to religious, social, economic and physical circumstances. Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s science was new, independent and was not dealt with by any previous thinker with such originality, extension and profoundness. He was the first Muslim philosopher cum-historian who contributed to the study of political institutions, forms of Government and the other public institutions and their development in Muslim States.

Physical Environments:Ibn-e-Khaldoon is predecessor of Montesquieu, realizing the influence of physical environments and climatic conditions on the habits and characters of people. He devotes a major portion of his work on the enquiry of the influence of food and climate upon human things. He explains that the people of fertile zones are stupid in mind and coarse in body, and that the influence of abundance upon the body is apparent in matters of religion and divine worship. He signifies the influence of physical environments on political institutions which reflect the character of people as molded by geographical environments. He said, “Bedouins are more courageous than other and the decline sets in life of a dynasty when people indulge in luxury and ease-loving life due to abundance of food and also development in arts and crafts.”

Natural Society:Herbert Spencer regarded moral improvement merely as an existence of the biological concept of adaptation, and social well-being in terms of the law of the survival of the fittest. Ibn-e-Khaldoon preceded him in propounding a theory of organic state. He said, “Dynasties have a natural life span like individuals. They have life of their own which normally does not exceed a period of 120 years for each dynasty in its capacity as a ruling nation.” Ibn-e-Khaldoon had already stressed on moral improvement in terms of biological concept of adaptation in the course of his discussion on problems concerning the transformation of nomadic life together with its variations in the various aspects of social behavior.

Professor Schmidt says, “Ibn-e-Khaldoon is a philosopher as much as Auguste Comte, Thomas Buckle or Herbert Spencer. His philosophy of history is not a theodicy as Hegel’s. Thus he is placed as philosopher, historian of civilization, a scholar of sociology and political economy. It is worthwhile to discover the glimpses of Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s views in the works of every western philosopher.” __________________

of 111


Stages in the Development of Society and the State

During the period of establishment, solidarity based upon familiarities and religion continues to be essential for the preservation of the state. This is the period during which the ruler forces the ruled to build the institution necessary for a civilized culture. There are new activities to be carried out and new political relations to be created. When aided by religion, solidarity becomes more effective in establishing the state, since the subjects will then obey the ruler and his directives more willingly convinced that in doing so they are praying to God. The stages in the development of the society and the state are following:

Stage 1. During the first stage, solidarity is still largely based on a community of sentiments, and the ruler owes his position to his noble ancestry and the respect of his fellow tribesmen. His role is dependent on their number, power and assistance. He is still their chief rather than their master and king. He has to accommodate their sentiments and desires and to share his power with them. The same is true of religion. The ruler who is establishing a state with the aid of a religious passage cannot act as a master and a king, since religion means the obedience of all to God and the religious Law.

Stage 2. The second stage in the development of the period of consolidating the ruler’s power is to create absolute kingship. Natural solidarity and religion are checked so far as they mean the sharing of power, and are used at the discretion of the absolute ruler. Solidarity is replaced by a paid army, and an organized administrative bureaucracy, that carry out his wishes. Natural solidarity becomes increasingly superfluous. The people generally acquire the habit obeying their new ruler. The impersonal organization of the army and bureaucracy take care of the protection of the state and the development of the various institutions of a civilized culture.

Stage 3. As the ruler’s lust and aggrandizement for attaining absolute power is satisfied with the full concentration of authority in his hands, he begins to use his authority for the satisfaction of his other desire in other words; he starts to collect the fruits of authority. Thus a third stage of luxury and leisure follows. The ruler concentrates on the organization of the finances of the state and goes on increasing his income. He spends lavishly on public works and one beautifying the cities in imitation of famous civilized states. He enriches his followers who start living a luxurious life. Economic progress and prosperity usher a new era of development, which satisfy the increasing desires of the ruler. The crafts, the fine arts and the sciences are greatly patronized to be flourishing for the satisfaction of the new ruling class. The state has finally reached the stage where it is able to satisfy man’s craving fro luxuries and his pride in possessing them. This is a period of rest and self-indulgence in which men enjoy the comforts and pleasures of the world.

The first three stages are powerful, independent and creative, they are able to consolidate their authority and satisfy the subjects becoming the slaves of these desires.

of 111


Stage 4. Having reached its zenith, the next stage is a period of contentment in which the ruler and the ruled are satisfied and complacent. They imitate their predecessors in enjoying the pleasures of life, how their predecessors struggled to achieve them. They think that their luxurious life and the various advantages of civilization have always been existed and will continue to exist for ever. Luxury, comfort and the gratification of their desires become a habit with them. The length of this period depends upon the power and extent of the achievements of the founder of the state.

Stage 5. During fifth stage, the state is already starting to decline and disintegrate. The fifth and last stage of waste and prodigality is setting in. the state has reached old age and is deemed to be slow or nearing death. The very process of establishing it had destroyed the vital forces of solidarity and religion that were responsible for its existence. The ruler had destroyed the communal pride and loyalty of their kinsmen, who humiliated and impoverished have lost the drive to conquer. Their successes, having known only the life of luxury and surrounded by a prodigal entourage, continue to spend more and more on their pleasure. They increase taxes and these in turn discover economic activity and lead to a decline in the income of the state which makes it impossible for the ruler to support his new followers.

Rosenthal was of the view “The fifth phase is one of extravagance and waste. In this phase the ruler destroys what his ancestors have brought together, for the sake of lust and pleasure. For he is generous towards his intimates and liberal at his banquets in order to win the scum of the people, to whom he entrusts great tasks which they are unable to undertake. In this way, he spoils (his chances) with the noble and distinguished among his people and with the followers of his predecessors, so that they are filled with hatred against him and agree among themselves to desert him. Moreover, he loses point of his troops because he spends their pay on his pleasure and prevents them from getting to know him personally. In this phase, the natural ageing of the dynasty (that is the decay) sets in and a chronic disease gets hold of it without remedy or release until it collapses.”

Further, the habits of comforts and luxury generate physical weakness and moral vices. The elite and the aristocrats forget the courageous manners of primitive life. They are powerless before an outside invasion by a strong civilized state or by united primitive people. Excessive taxes and fear of invasion weakens the hopes of ruled. Despondency becomes so common and it reigns the day and consequently it freezes all economic activities. The entire population physically weakens and living in large crowded cities become subject to disease and plague. With the decrease of economic activity and the depopulation of cities, the state begins to disintegrate; starting form the outlying regions, princes, generals and the discontented kinsmen of the ruler become independent.

In the capital of the state, the mercenary troops and civil bureaucracy begin intriguing to wrest the actual power from the ruler, leaving him but the insignia and the name. Finally an external invasion puts an end to the life of the state, or it may continue to decline until it withers away

of 111


like a wick dying out in the lamp of which oil is gone or goes under the subjugation of foreign power. __________________

of 111


Ibn-e-Khaldoon as a Father of Political Economy

Ibn-e-Khaldoon has rightly been claimed as the forerunner of a great many Western scholars such as Machiavelli, Boding, Gibbon, Montesquieu, and many other notable thinkers. There is hardly any other thinker with whom he might not be compared. Long before Adam Smith, Ibn-e-Khaldoon foresaw the interconnection of political and economic institutions. The Muslim genius made an enquiry into the various aspects of economic activities and recorded their political significance in respect of their good and bad effects on the state. Stefan Colosio said, “The great Muslim historian was able to discover in the Middle Ages the principles of social justice and political economy before Considerant, Marx and Baconine. He was an original economist who understood the principles of political economy and applied it skillfully and intelligently, long before it was known to Western research. He thus talks about state’s work in economic field, and its bad effects about political forces and social classes, the methods and kinds of property, the social task of labor, and its division into free and paid labor, and about law of supply and demand.”

Role of capital and labor in Economy:Ibn-e-Khaldoon depicts a vivid picture of the role of capital and labor in an economy. He devotes special chapters to the question of Government finances and other business affairs. His theory of labor, in which he defines profit and sustenance and the role of labor in the fixation of the values of the commodities, exerted a marked influence on the writings of classical economists. Ibn-e-Khaldoon defines the term sustenance and profit as, “The part of the income that is obtained by a person through his own effort and strength is called profit. When a particular person enjoys its fruits by spending it upon his interest and need, it is called sustenance. Thus it is the part of the profit that is utilized. If the profit results from something other than a craft, the value of the resulting profit and acquired (capital) must also include the value of the labor by which it was obtained; without labor it would not have been acquired. A portion of the value whether large or small, comes from the labor.”

Ibn-e-Khaldoon praises Islamic economic system which prescribes Zakat, Kharaj and Jizya. To establish the superiority of Islamic economic system, he quotes the saying of Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.): “The only thing you possess of your property is what you ate, and have thus destroyed; or what you gave as charity, and have thus spent.” Ibn-e-Khaldoon severely condemns the engagement of rulers in the commercial activity because it creates hurdles in the development of a free competition in economic field, which is most essential for the circulation of wealth in the society as a whole. If the rulers indulge in trade activities, they would be I an advantageous position in the selling and purchasing of the commodities, by virtue of their political control on the commercial activities. Thus injustice would be brought about in the society which is disastrous for the dynasty.

Taxation Policy:Among the economic problems his discussion first elaborately starts with taxation. As a practical

of 111


politician he had full knowledge of the ways and means to collect the Government revenues. He was of the view that taxation must be equitable and just. When justice and equity are lacking in taxation policy of a Government, it is inviting its own ruin. He said, “In the beginning of dynasty taxation yields large revenue from assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields small revenue from large assessments.”

A balanced budget is essential for sound economy and is the key to stability of the political order. Ibn-e-Khaldoon said, “In the beginning of the state, taxes are light in the distribution but considerable in their total and vice versa. The reason is that the state, which follows the ways of religion, only demands the obligation imposed by the Shariah, namely Zakat, Kharaj and Jizya, which are light in their distribution and these are the limits beyond which one must not go.”

A rural economy based on agriculture, with a simple standard of living and light taxes, provides an incentive to work hard, with prosperity as the prize. But as soon as autocrats assume power and urban life, with a much higher standard of living, makes greater demands, heavier taxes are levied upon farmers, craftsmen and merchants. Production and profits decline, since the incentive has been taken away from all those engaged in the economic life of the state.

Salaries and Allowances:The deductions in services and allowances decrease expenditures of those affected which ultimately affects the incomes of so many others from whom they used to buy things. This involves a decrease in a business activity and monetary transactions and thus leads to diminishing tax revenues of the state. He disapproves such procedures by a state. Ibn-e-Khaldoon extensively deals with the injustice to the people and is of the view that it brings about the ruin of civilization, because attacks on people’s property remove the incentive to acquire or gain property.

The great injustice which he mentions is buying the people’s property at cheaper rates and selling it at higher rates. It is most destructive to civilization. This involves taking the capital of the people and this making them unable to do the cultural enterprise. When capital is decreased, profits are diminished, people’s incentive slackens and thereby the business dwindles. Ultimately this proves to be a death blow to the state.

Standard of Living:The prosperity and business activity in different cities differ in accordance with the difference in the size of their population. As labor is the fundamental source of profit or income, larger the labor, the higher the profit. The extra labor works for luxuries and luxury goods and crafts etc. Production thrives income and expenditure of the inhabitants multiply and more and more population pours into the city. All the strata of the society in the large city is affected. As profit is the value realized from labor, larger the labor the more will be the value realized from it, which leads to prosperity. In less populated cities or remote towns, villages and hamlets, people are equally poor because their labor does not pay for their necessities and does not yield them a surplus which they can accumulate as profit. Even beggars and poor differ in large and small

of 111


cities.

Income and expenditure balance each other in every city. If both are large, the inhabitants are prosperous and the city grows. Ibn-e-Khaldoon concludes that the favorable conditions and much prosperity in civilization are the result of its large size. As is the case in cities, so it is with the countries. He gave the examples of the populated countries such as Egypt, Syria, India, and China as being more prosperous as compared to the less populated regions which were less prosperous.

It should be noted that Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s thesis is that higher population brings much labor and much value is realized from it, which causes profit and prosperity. Apparently it may sound strange today, that more populated countries are poor and less populated ones are advanced. But as far as cities in a given country are concerned, his construction is as valid as it was in his time. Technological changes were not occurring in his time, he does not explicitly elucidate the role of productivity of labor.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon was of the view that the wages of the teachers and religious officials are lower, because demand for their services is not high. His remarkable exposition of labor, value, profit, population and their correlation with prosperity and civilization has stood the test of time. He gives the definition of profit as the value realized from human labor. He said, “With the decrease of population sustenance of a country disappears, springs stop flowing because they require labor, they flow only if dug out and water drawn. He compares this process with the udders of cattle.”

Livelihood:His derivation of livelihood is interesting, he said, “It should be known that livelihood means the desire for sustenance and the efforts to obtain it. Livelihood is information from Ashe life. The idea is that Ashe life obtained only through the things (that go into making a living) and that they are considered with some exaggeration, the place of life.”

Among productive activities he included medical services, education and musical etc. whereas Adam Smith excluded services from his definition of real national product. But Ibn-e-Khaldoon excludes activities such as based on fraud, exploitation or ignorance i-e, astrology, alchemy, search for buried treasure and the various public servants who receive their shares from public receipts vitiated by injustice, oppression and fiscal pressure. While dealing with comparative wages, he has very intelligently analyzed the reasons for the low wages of dealing with religious matters, teachers, mufti, prayer leaders, preacher, muezzin etc. as profit is value realized from labor, the value of labor profits differs according to the needs or particular kind of labor. He said, “Now the common people have no compelling need for the things that the religious officials have to offer.” So their share is in accordance with the general need and demand of the population for them. It is meager as compared with others. Besides he deals with various other and economic problems such as high and low prices, crafts, agriculture, prices of food stuff and hoarding etc. in all these matters, Ibn-e-Khaldoon showed the depth of great thinker and political economist.

of 111


__________________

of 111


Muslim Political Thought---Allama Iqbal

Allama Iqbal

Introduction:Allama Muhammad Iqbal is a figure of legendary greatness amongst the scholars and poets of the modern age and his political thought has won a great deal of attention and respect amongst discerning students of political philosophy. He was born at Sialkot, a renowned city of Pakistan. He received his early education in Scotch Mission College, Sialkot and after his elementary schooling; he came to Lahore for higher education. He did M.A. in Philosophy from Government College Lahore in 1899 and served the Government College, as a lecturer in the subject of Philosophy for about five years. He later left for England in 1905 for higher studies. He obtained PhD degree from Munich University by writing a thesis, The Development of Metaphysics in Persia. He again went to London and did Bar-at-Law from Lincoln’s Inn. He returned to India in 1908 and was appointed as Professor of Philosophy in the Government College Lahore. Along with professorship he enrolled himself as a practicing barrister at the Lahore High Court. He resigned after a year and half from professorship and continued his legal practice.

He entered into practical politics and joined his efforts with freedom-champions to liberate the Indian Muslims from the clutches of the Hindus and subjugation of the English. He was elected as Member of the Punjab Legislative Council, and later elected unanimously of the President of All-India Muslim League. He vigorously advocated the two nation theory and demanded a separate homeland for Indian Muslims, where their religion and culture could flourish without any fear of chauvinism. He actuated the Muslims of India from political slumber to champion their cause for separate country within India, and this very vision became crystal reality in his pronouncement in the annual session of the League in 1930. Dr. Allama Iqbal’s declaration for Pakistan echoed throughout the world and it became the instrumental in re-awakening and the enlightenment of Muslims to combat all forces for the achievement of a separate homeland i-e. Pakistan.

Dr. Iqbal has given an ever-inspiring treasure of knowledge and philosophy through his works, which have immortalized him on the pages of existence. He is widely respected because of his philosophy and poetry which enlivened the nation, living in a state of vertigo to win their liberty from the usurpers. As poet he is considered to be the poet of Prophets for all ages. His works have been translated into many foreign languages so that the students must properly be benefited in their future researches by his thoughts and philosophies.

His works are detailed as under:

1. Development of Metaphysics in Persia (Thesis for PhD)2. Asrar-e-Khudi (Secrets of Self)3. Ramooz-e-Bay-Khudi (Mysteries of Selflessness)

of 111


4. Payam-e-Mashriq (Message of the East)5. Bang-e-Dara6. Zaboor-e-Ajam7. Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (collection of lectures)8. Javed Namah9. Bal-e-Jibraeel10. Pas Che Bayad Kard Ay Aqwam-e-Sharq11. Zarb–e-Kaleem12. Armughan-e-Hijaz13. Ilmul-Iqtisad (Economics)

Iqbal as a Muslim Political Thinker

Allama Iqbal a great supporter of freedom and pioneer of Muslim movement in the sub-continent recklessly strived for the achievement of his noble ideals. Indian Muslims were tied in the chains of enslavement and subjection and he strived for the whole nation with his virulent speeches and thought-provoking declarations for making unanimous efforts for liberty and emancipation. His dynamism is proverbial, his mysticism is extraordinary and his simplicity is an example for his followers. He gave new inspiration to the Muslims who were politically unconscious and ignorant. He kindled fire in them to fight for their basic rights. He is loudly applauded everywhere due to his greater contributions leading to the ultimate establishment of Pakistan.

Allama Iqbal was a sensitive sage of his age and he saw the prevailing political ills in India, and inculcated ideals for the complete liquidation of the dominators, so that Islamic culture and heritage be protected from all penetrating evils. The Hindu and the English were the two domineering forces in the sub-continent and all fundamental privileges for Muslims were completely denied. In order to liberate the Muslims from cruel subjugation, our thinker took deep interest in the political situation and problems as no sensitive and intelligent young Indian could fail to do, but “it was only when he realized that most of the political leaders of the Muslims were lacking political acumen and foresight that he started taking active interest in politics.” (S.A.Vahid)

Allama Iqbal was a member of the Committee of Muslim League formed in London in 1903 by the Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali. On his return from England, Iqbal took keen interest in the objective working of the Muslim League but did not participate actively in politics from 1910-1923. In 1924, Allama Iqbal joined the National Liberal League of Lahore but not finding it very effective resigned from it later on. In 1926, he was elected as a member to the Punjab Legislative Assembly.

Secretary of Muslim League:In 1928, Iqbal became secretary of that branch of the Muslim League which functioned under the

of 111


President-ship of Sir Muhammad Shafi. Along with other members of League, he appeared before the Simon Commission which was appointed by the British Government to report on the introduction of further political reforms in the sub-continent. While participating eagerly in Punjab politics, Iqbal was also interested in all-India politics. In 1929 he attended the Muslim Conference held in Delhi under the Chairmanship of Sir Agha Khan, and made some important contribution to the deliberations of the conference. In 1930, he was unanimously elected to preside over the Annual Session of the Muslim League held in Allahbad. In his historic presidential address, Iqbal said, “I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the foundation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.”

Round Table Conference:In 1931, Allama Iqbal attended the Second round Table Conference in London and served as the representative of the Minorities Committee. He returned to Lahore on 30th December 1931 most disappointed at the attitude of Mr. Gandhi and other Hindu leaders at the conference and convinced more than ever, that the only solution of the political troubles of the sub-continent was a division of the country.

In 1932, Iqbal was invited to attend the Third Round Table Conference. While the Conference was in progress, Iqbal grew so dissatisfied with its proceedings that he resigned and returned to India. In 1936, at the inspirations of Mr. Jinnah, Iqbal undertook the work for the Punjab Parliamentary Board, which was to conduct elections. Muslim politics was in turmoil and chaos as at that time Mr. Jinnah was facing a very hard time. But in the midst of all this darkness there shone a flickering light in Lahore and this was Iqbal who stood steadfast by Jinnah in those trying days and helped him to charter the course of Indo-Muslim politics.

When Allama Iqbal died as a broken heart without seeing the fulfillment of his ideals, Mr. Jinnah sent this message to his son, “To me he was friend, guide and philosopher and during the darkest moments through which the Muslim League had to go he stood like a rock and never flinched one single moment.”

On March 24, 1940, when the Pakistan Resolution was passed by the Muslim League at Lahore, Mr. Jinnah said, “Iqbal is no more amongst us, but had he been alive he would have been happy to know that we did exactly what he wanted us to do.”

Iqbal’s Contributions:No one today denies that Iqbal placed a very vital part in the founding of Pakistan. Iqbal was perhaps not a politician in the strict sense in which Mr. Jinnah or Mr. Nehru were, but he could see further than almost any other of his contemporaries could. It was the part of Allama Iqbal’s greatness that he not only formulated conception of an Islamic State in India and outlined its physical boundaries but laid down the characteristics which a state must have. Rushbrook Williams said, “If it were to provide that interplay between the individual and the society in

of 111


which the individual lives, which Iqbal knew to be essential for the highest development of both.”

Allama Iqbal’s contributions to Islam and Muslims are unparalleled in their characteristics and his followers interwove the practicability on the basis of his ideals. All Muslims of the world are indebted to our great thinker and pay gratitude for his relentless fight for a separate homeland, which changed the political attitudes of other sovereigns. His selfless services and devotion in the field of poetry, philosophy and metaphysics are unprecedented, which ushered a new era of literature and knowledge. His message through his statements, speeches and work will ever vibrate against evil, slavery and subjugation.

of 111


Iqbal’s Concept of an Islamic State

Allama Iqbal’s greatness as a versatile poet and his originality and profoundity as a renowned thinker can never be denied in any age of human thought and philosophy. His greatness in these fields can attract no controversy. The eternal presence of the Poet of the East in Pakistan is felt with deep reverence and respect more than a visionary poet or merely an academic philosopher. He is the creator of the very conception of the state of Pakistan. The birth of Pakistan, as an independent Islamic state, on the map of globe, had many causes but name so potent as the one that has reference to the vision which Iqbal had about the political future of the Indian Muslims.

Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan, the former President of Pakistan, said, “It is common fallacy to believe that the concept of Pakistan was formed in a poet’s dream. The poet, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, was no idle dreamer. Nor can countries like Pakistan, 364737 square miles; population 80,000,000 spring from the nebulous realm of poetry alone. Iqbal was in fact a philosopher of traditional as well as modern thought who had made a careful study of human affairs, both of East and West, and focused the light of his inquiry on the causes of economic and cultural subjugation to which the Muslims of India had been systematically subjected since their first abortive struggle for independence in 1857. It was in his presidential address at the annual session of All-India Muslim League in 1930 that he spelt out the broad outlines of a plan under which the Muslims of India were led to aspire to an independent state in which they would be free to follow their own way of life.”

Allama Iqbal in the name of Ijtehad, strongly defended his idea of the creation of Muslim Empire within the sub-continent of India, which was very akin to its approximation to the Western conception of the term “state”, purely as an interim and transitional phase of the growth of universal brotherhood of man. Khawaja Abdur Rahim was of the view that Universal brotherhood is an ideal good for human evolution which Islam came to establish, and the symbol of which phenomenon every year is held aloft by Islam for the rest of the world to see on the day of pilgrimage at Mecca, when millions of Muslims coming from distant parts of the world congregate, in the presence of One God, and stand shoulder to shoulder in spite of the local loyalties they may owe to the lands whence they come.

Allama Iqbal said, “For the present every Muslim nation must sink into her own deeper self, temporarily focus her vision on herself alone, until all are strong and powerful to form a living family of republics. A true and living unity, according to the nationalist thinkers, is not so easy as to be achieved by a merely symbolical over lordship. It is truly manifested in a multiplicity of free independent units whose racial rivalries are adjusted and harmonized by the unifying bond of a common spiritual aspiration. It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a League of Nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for facility of reference only and not for restricting the social horizon of its members.”

of 111


The state of Pakistan exists to fulfill higher Muslim aspirations in the modern world history; to begin with, it must be made to serve as a stepping stone to the final phase of Muslim history, as a sort of a platform from where we are to appeal to the rest of the humanity to listen to the Divine Oracle which says that all humanity is one and the various communities into which it is divided is merely for the purpose of identification and the division has no other deeper meaning. The philosophy of colorless cosmopolitan must not be accepted. For the uplift of universal brotherhood of mankind, Pakistan should not emphasis the growth of the distinctive and cultural features. It is rather to stress that the historical evolution of our national life in all its uniqueness is an important condition precedent for the full realization of the ideal of brotherhood of man. We have to love Pakistan and develop the distinctive features of Pakistan’s culture.

Allama Iqbal was of opinion that the rehabilitation of Muslim history could take place provided in Pakistan, future homeland of Indian Muslims; historical task will be approached, for development of national culture with an eye on ultimate goal of universal history. In Islam the idea of territorial frontiers has no ultimate juridical significance, because fundamentally the earth belongs to the God and is the inheritance of the righteous ones. The discords and the conflicts which are presently infesting the world peace and are threatening to mount up to a point where another global war may breakout with consequences too terrible to contemplate, are ultimately traceable to the rigid adherence to the concept of absolute national sovereignty.

No nation is prepared to surrender any part of its sovereignty in favor of the creation of super national authority; that is so simply because the state in our own day has become an idol which is to be worshipped to the utter neglect of our reverence for that element of transcendence which gives to the human history, a universal background. Much of the chaos and disorder that one notices is the social, economic and political. Life in Pakistan ultimately reflects the crisis of a character which has taken place in our interior consciousness. It is here that an attempt that healing has to be initiated. Ethics but not Economics lay down the primary force for the redemption of man. All strength, even material strength is ultimately possible and durable only upon a moral basis. __________________

of 111


Iqbal’s Conception of Khudi (Ego)

The conception of Khudi has been the most important contribution of Iqbal to the realm of political thought. It was not due to the fact that he was the first to treat the subject before him such eminent minds as Nietzsche, Fichte, Bergso and William James had dealt with the subject from the various angles of vision. Iqbal’s originality lay in the fact that the whole concept of Khudi underwent a radical change and assumed a realistic interpretation under his masterly pen. To Iqbal, Khudi or ego does not signify pride or arrogance, but the spirit of self affirmation of one’s potentialities and their proper utilization. Every object of the universe exhibits this spirit in some way or other. Even the Creator of this universe could not help expressing His ego and created this world in order to be known. One Hadith alludes to this fact in these words:

“I was a hidden treasure. I wished that I may be recognized, therefore I created the whole creature.”

Thus man being the highest creature, should have spirit of “I-am-ness” in its perfection, and should assimilate and absorb in himself the attributes of God and thus become His vicegerent (naib) on earth. This implies that a limited authority has been given to every man to fashion his life according to ego. Ego must then consist in creating desires and wishes and trying to realize them, by the authority vested in every man.

Iqbal said,

کرد بیدار خودی چوں را خویشتنکرد پندار عالم آشکارا

او ذات اندر پوشید اں ج ہصد ہاو اثبات از پیداست او غیر

است کاشت خصومت تخم اں ج ہدراست پنداشت خود غیر را خویشتن

When the Self awakened itself, it revealed the world of concepts.

A hundred worlds are hidden in its being; its not-self comes to being from its self-affirmation.

It has sown the seeds of hostility in the world by imagining itself to be other than itself.

Allama Iqbal believed that the philosophy of self-denial was developed by the weaker nations in their days of decline and degradation. The criticism of Nietzsche against Christianity was based on the fact that the Christians having a defeatist mentality believed that paradise was to be given to the weak and the humble few and not to the wealthy and the strong.

of 111


Iqbal and Nietzsche:Despite the high price he bestowed upon Nietzsche and acceptance of his influence, the fact remains that Iqbal was never completely a follower of Nietzsche. Iqbal profited from many great thinkers and renowned Sufis, but in keeping with his own philosophy of Khudi he never completely became an imitator of any. The influence of Western thought apparent in Asrar-i-Khudi contains not only the philosophy of Nietzsche but also ideas of the German philosopher, Fichte, and of the French Jews, Bergson.

Allama Iqbal has delineated in his famous poem, Asrar-i-Khudi that there are three stages in the development of Khudi. The first stage is called Obedience, the second Self-Control and the third is called Divine Vicegerency. In the first stage the self is likened which is taken directly from Nietzsche, while the other tow are taken from Islamic philosophy and literature. Allama Iqbal states in his famous lecture entitled, “The Human Ego” that there is in the history of modern thought one positive view of immortality. This view deserves some consideration, not only because Nietzsche has maintained i.e. with prophetical fervor but also because it reveals a real tendency in the modern mind.

Allama Iqbal said, “The Quranic view of the testing of man is partly ethical, partly biological. I say partly biological because the Quran makes in this connection certain statements of a biological nature which we cannot understand without a deeper insight into the nature of life. It mentions, for instance, the fact of Barzakh, a state perhaps of some kind of suspense between Death and Resurrection. Resurrection appears to have been differently conceived. The Quran does not base its possibility, like Christianity, on the evidence of the actual resurrection of an historic person. It seems to take and argue resurrection as a universal phenomenon of life, in some sense true even of birds or animals.”

According to Quranic view:

1. That the ego has a beginning in time, and did not pre-exist its emergence in the spatio-temporal order.

2. There is no possibility of return to this earth. This is clear from the following verses: “When death overtook one of them, he said, Lord! Send me back again, that I may do the good that I have left undone. By no means, these are the very words which he shall speak. But behind them is a barrier (Barzakh), until the day when they shall be raised again. "(23, 101)

3. That infinite is not a misfortune: “Verily there is none in the Heavens and in the Earth but shall approach the God of Mercy as a servant. He has taken note of them and remembered them with exact numbering: and each of them shall come to Him on the day of resurrection as a single individual.”

of 111


This is a very important point and must be properly understood to have a clear insight into the Islamic theory of salvation. It is with the irreplaceable singleness of his individuality that finite ego will approach the infinite ego to see for himself the consequences of his past actions and to judge the possibility of his future.

Helpers of Ego:Allama Iqbal maintains that stability, permanence and integrity are the essence of ego. A dew-drop vanishes with the sunlight; a drop of tear disappears after a while, because they took stability, while a drop which remains in a sea shell becomes a pearl. Similarly, an individual should subjugate and exploit to his benefit, the things external to him and save himself from being subjugated. It is true that as against God man is helpless, but as against other creatures, or natural objects, man is quite powerful, to harness them to his best advantage and benefit.

Mr. Justice Anwar-ul-Haq said, “According to Iqbal, life is a forward, assimilative process and in essence is the continuous creation of desires and ideas. The human ego has a definite mission on earth in the two main diversions. In the first place, it has to struggle with its environment and to conquer it. By this conquest it attains freedom and approaches God, Who is the freest entity. In the second place, the ego has to maintain a constant state of tension and thereby attain immortality. By attaining freedom and immortality the go conquers space on the one hand and time on the other. The ego has to help in the upward march of humanity by leading to the birth of a higher type of man, namely, the superman or the perfect man, who is the ideal to which all life aspires.”

According to Iqbal the following factors and forces fortify the human ego or personality:

1. Love:Iqbal explained the word Love in a letter to Prof. Nicholson, “It means the desire to assimilate, to absorb. Its highest form is the creation of values and ideals and the endeavors to realize them. Love individualizes the lover as well as the beloved. The effort to realize the most unique individuality individualizes the seeker and implies individuality of the sought, for nothing else would satisfy the nature of the seeker.”

2. Faqr:By Faqr, Iqbal means an attitude of mind which enables a man to endlessly strive spurning delights and rewards, except the attainment of worthy ends. In other words, it depicts selflessness and abnegation and ascendancy over one’s natural environment and a sense of complete detachment from worldly affairs and rewards. Once an individual is able to achieve this attitude of mind, there is no limit to what he might attain in the way of development of personality and spiritual strength. Allied with Faqr is the element of courage, both physical and moral.

3. Courage:Both physical and moral courage means overcoming and combating all obstacles and hurdles with no failure of nerve, no submission to forces of evil or to desire to give in except to

of 111


conviction. Iqbal calls upon the younger generation to live dangerously and courageously. He said,

باکی ب و گوئی حق مرداں جواں ےآئینروباھی نھیں آتی کو شیروں ک ےاللة

The code for men of courage is spontaneous truth and fearlessness; Brave people knew nothing about cunningness.

4. Tolerance:For other people’s views and manners represents the strength of the high order and its cultivation is greatly beneficial to human society. It also sustains and strengthens the human ego.

5. Kasb-e-Halal:In a world where selfishness and aggrandizement are playing vital part in human life, insistence on kasb-e-halal is of the utmost significance. Iqbal insists that the individuals should constantly exert him to acquire things which he wants to enjoy. He even goes to the extent of deprecating inheritance of worldly good as he feels that it hurts the ego. Even in the field of ideas, Iqbal advices avoidance of borrowing. Succinctly, lawful and rightful acquisition, anything not obtained by foul means like cheating, fraud or theft, acquiring things or ideas through one’s personal efforts and struggles.

6. Creative and original activity:Iqbal is opposed to mimicry and copying others slavishly. Blind imitation is of no avail and must be discouraged.

As against these positive factors there are certain negative forces which are constantly at work to weaken the ego and stultify the human personality. These are:

1. Fear:Fear of persons and objects (except God) in all its different phases such as worry, anxiety, anger, jealousy and timidity is a positive danger for ego. It robs man of efficiency and happiness.

2. Beggary:Not used in the limited sense but all that is achieved without personal effort and it is in every form inimical to ego development. All economic and social parasites which flourish on society under various high-sounding names are beggars.

3. Slavery:It completely arrests the freedom of man, which retards the development of one’s ego. Enslavement and mental torture of man, who’s self prompts him for freedom. Every kind of slavery, whether physical or mental, distorts character and lowers man to the level of a beast and weakens the human ego. It stifles the growth of ego which needs freedom for its normal

of 111


development.

4. Nasab-Parasti:Races, nations, tribes, communities, castes and families take pride in their superior racial characters come to destroy the peace and tranquility of the world.

Iqbal is strongly opposed to all these weaknesses in human character. In fact these weaknesses develop due to the failure of the individual to practice or inculcate in him the positive elements for the development of character and personality.

Mr. Justice Anwar-ul-Haq says, “These basic elements in Iqbal’s concept of Khudi were explained to the younger generation of this country in which hope lies for the future. In fact humanity at large could benefit immensely by the adoption of these ideals. While man has made enormous strides in the development of scientific techniques and is on the verge of conquering space and outer space. I am not sure whether he has made progress in conquering the basic elements in his own nature. It is imperative for us, who are fortunate to have the stage of Iqbal’s philosophy, to understand this philosophy and to try to act upon it in our daily lives. Who knows that the salvation of the world may yet lie with those who imbibe the teachings of Iqbal and of the Quran which is the source of Iqbal’s inspiration?” __________________

of 111

pol science notes

Documents