Political Science - I : Previous Year Questions (2019)

2019

Time: 3 Hours

Max Marks: 50

PART – A

Answer the following questions in one sentence each. (10 x 1 = 10)

Q1. What is Politics?

Ans. Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions, typically involving the acquisition and exercise of power to determine the authoritative allocation of resources and values within a society or group.

Q2. What do you mean by Behaviouralism?

Ans. Behaviouralism is an approach that focuses on studying the actual behaviour of individuals and groups in politics rather than just laws, institutions, or ideas. It tries to make political study more scientific by using observation, data, and measurable evidence to understand how people really act in political situations.

Q3. Define Power.

Ans. It refers to the ability or capacity of an individual or group to influence, control, or direct the behaviour of others, often in the context of governance, law, and public policy. Power determines who gets what, when, and how, making it central to understanding political structures, institutions, and relations.

1. According to Herbert and Edward Shills, “Power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others in accordance with one’s own ends.”

Q4. How does power become legitimate?

Ans. Legitimate power refers to power that is recognized as rightful by those subject to it. It is based on consent, acceptance, or legality, and is often institutionalized within a political or legal framework.

Q5. Define equality.

Ans. Equality means giving every person the same respect, status, and opportunity, without discrimination on any unfair basis like caste, gender, religion, or wealth. It ensures everyone is treated as equally valuable in society.

Q6. Write two key attributes of sovereignty.

Ans. Two key attributes of sovereignty are:

1. Absoluteness

Traditionally, sovereignty was viewed as absolute, meaning it was not subject to any external or internal limitations. Thinkers like Bodin and Hobbes argued that the State must have undivided authority to maintain peace. However, in modern democracies this absoluteness is moderated by constitutional checks, judicial review, and international norms. Still, the idea remains that the State exercises ultimate legal power within its jurisdiction.

2. Universality

Sovereignty applies to all individuals and organisations within the State. No one is exempt from its laws unless specifically granted immunity through constitutional or legal provisions. This universality reinforces equality before the law and strengthens the legitimacy of the State’s authority.

Q7. What do you mean by pressure groups?

Ans. Pressure Groups are organized associations that seek to influence government policy and decision-making without aiming to directly capture political power or run the government themselves. They are also referred to as interest groups, special interest groups, or advocacy groups.

1. According to H. Ziegler, a pressure group is “an organised aggregate which seeks to influence the context of governmental decisions without attempting to place its members in formal governmental capacities.”

Q8. Differentiate between procedural and participating democracy.

Ans. Difference between Procedural and Participating Democracy:

1. Procedural Democracy focuses on the rules and methods. It treats democracy as a "checklist" where having free elections, a constitution, and the right to vote makes a country democratic, regardless of how active the people are.

1. Participatory democracy, on the other hand, stresses the active involvement of people in decision-making beyond just voting. It encourages citizens to engage in discussions, community decisions, and continuous political participation to strengthen democracy.

Q9. Is Right to Property a Fundamental Right?

Ans. No, the right to property is no longer a fundamental right in India; it was removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978. It is now considered a constitutional right under Article 300A, which states that no person can be deprived of their property except by the authority of law.

Q10. When does the UN declaration of human rights adopted?

Ans. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, defines Human Rights as rights derived from the inherent dignity of the human being. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in the aftermath of World War II, as a response to the atrocities committed during the war.

PART – B

Answer the following questions in 4-5 lines each. Each question carries 4 marks. (4 x 4 = 16)

Q11. Write four key elements of state.

Ans. Modern State is constituted of 4 elements: -

1. Population –

1. State is the highest of all human associations.

1. It is a human institution and there can be no State without human beings. A population of some kind is necessary for the existence of the State.

1. No State can exist in an inhabited land, nor can a definite piece of land without human habitation is called a State.

1. A State being a human institution can never exist without human beings, nor can living beings other than humans constitute a State.

2. Territory –

1. It covers the surface of land with well-demarcated boundaries from the soil, lakes, rivers, and also air space above the land.

1. According to Bluntschli, “as the State has its personal basis on its land so it has its material basis in land. The people do not become State until they have acquired territory. Territory is one of the basic requirements of the State whereas human activities don’t indispensably require territory. The co-existence of two or more states on the same territory could lead to continuous state of war or conflicts.”

3. Government –

1. Government is also an indispensable element of the state because no state can exist in the absence of Government.

1. A group of people permanently settled in a fixed territory cannot constitute a State in the absence of Government.

1. Government is the political organisation through which collective will of the people is formulated, expressed and executed.

1. The State operates through governmental machinery. Government is the agency through which society is politically organised, common policies are determined and by which common affairs are regulated and common interest are promoted in the absence of a government.

1. A group of people permanently settled in a fixed territory would be incoherent, unorganised and an anarchic mass with no means of collective action.

1. No particular type of government is essential, it may vary in kind and complexity.

1. If two governments are formed in a country, the country is divided into two states.

1. In the absence of government, no state can afford to exist.

4. Sovereignty –

1. It is regarded as life and soul of the state. There can be no State in the absence of Sovereignty.

1. The word Sovereignty has been derived from the Latin Term “Supranus”, which mean “Supreme”.

1. It is Sovereignty that differentiates the State from all other social organisations.

1. State is the only human institution that has all the essential elements including Sovereignty.

1. The sovereignty of the State is expressed through the government which is supreme in internal and external matters.

Q12. Write four differences between Traditional and Modern Political Science.

Ans. The traditional and modern perspectives of Political Science differ mainly in their focus, methods, and understanding of what “politics” includes.

In simple terms, the traditional view is State-centred, philosophical, and institutional, while the modern view is people-centred, empirical, and behaviour-oriented. Both perspectives contribute to our understanding of politics, but the modern approach provides a more holistic and realistic picture of how political life actually functions.

Q13. What is difference between Fundamental and Legal Rights?

Ans. Here are the four key differences:

1. Source of Origin

1. Fundamental Rights: These are protected directly by the Constitution (specifically Part III in India). They are considered sacred and essential for human development.
2. Legal Rights: These are created by ordinary laws (statutes) passed by the Parliament or State Legislature. They can be given or taken away by changing a simple law.

2. Level of Protection (Enforceability)

1. Fundamental Rights: If these are violated, you have a special privilege to go directly to the Supreme Court (under Article 32) or High Courts.
2. Legal Rights: If a legal right is violated, you cannot skip the line. You must approach the subordinate (lower) courts first and move up through the standard appeal process.

3. Immunity and Change

1. Fundamental Rights: They are very difficult to change. The government needs a Constitutional Amendment (a special majority vote) to alter them. They cannot be taken away arbitrarily.
2. Legal Rights: These can be changed, amended, or repealed by the government through an ordinary law (simple majority).

4. Scope of Suspension

1. Fundamental Rights: They are so powerful that they cannot be suspended easily, though some can be temporarily suspended during a National Emergency (except for the Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
2. Legal Rights: There is no specific constitutional provision for their suspension during emergencies; their status depends entirely on the specific law governing them.

Examples:

1. Fundamental Rights: Right to Equality, Right to Freedom of Speech, etc.
2. Legal Rights: Right to Vote, Right to Property, etc.

In conclusion,

Fundamental Rights are like the backbone of citizens’ freedoms protected by the Constitution, while Legal Rights are ordinary rights given and regulated by laws.

Q14. Describe John Rawls’ Theory of Justice.

Ans. It is one of the most important theories in the field of jurisprudence and Political Science. His work has left a landmark, introducing a legal theory that aims for a society with liberty, equality, and justice for all. Rawls’ influence in the field is evident, as he attempted to provide a moral theory which is an alternative to utilitarianism and addresses the problem of distributive justice.

John Rawls’ concept of Social Justice gives emphasis to fairness, i.e., it must be fair to all, to the most talented as well as the most disadvantaged section. Rawl proposes an experiment where the individual is behind the veil of ignorance. He concludes that the nature of society to be established would give priority to the following in Lexical Order:

1. Maximum Personal Liberty
2. Equality of Opportunity
3. Difference Principle

It follows that any principle of justice, including those that regulate economic and social inequalities must be acceptable to all and help each citizen pursue his or her conception of the good.

In the Indian context, the positive discrimination in favour of certain disadvantaged sections can be considered as the incorporation of the 3^rd principle of Rawl. In India too, we have given maximum liberty and equality of opportunity for free enterprise. We have provided for a number of welfare programmes as a safety net for the disadvantaged sections to protect them. The Constitution of India has favoured to establish an egalitarian society instead of a meritocratic society.

Rawl argues that the only way we can arrive at a fair and just rule is if we imagine ourselves to be in a situation in which we have make decisions about how society should be organised, although we do not know which position we would ourselves occupy in that society, i.e., we do not know what kind of family we would be born in, whether we would be born into an “Upper” caste or “Lower” caste family, rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged.

Rawl argues that if we do not know, in this sense, who will be and what options would be available to us in the future society, we will be likely to support a decision about the rules and organisation of that future society which would be fair for all the members.

Rawl describes this as thinking under the “Veil of Ignorance.” He expects that in such a situation of complete ignorance about our possible position and status in a society, each person would decide in the way they generally do, i.e., in terms of their own interests. But, since no one knows who he would be and what is going to benefit him, each will envisage the future society from the point of view of the worst-off.

The “Merit” of number 1 position is that it expects people to just be their usual rational selves, they are expected to think for themselves and choose what they regard to be in their interest. 

PART – C

Answer the following questions in 400 words each. Attempt any three. Each question carries 8 marks. (3 x 8 = 24)

Q15. Describe concept of authority.

Ans. Authority refers to the legitimate power or right to command, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Unlike mere power, which can be based on coercion or force, authority is recognized as rightful and accepted by those who are subject to it. It implies that the governed acknowledge the right of the ruler or institution to issue directives, and they comply not out of fear, but out of a sense of obligation or legitimacy.

Authority is essential in maintaining order, stability, and legality within a political system. It provides the basis for the functioning of the state, government, law-making bodies, and administrative institutions. Political thinkers such as Max Weber classified authority into three main types: traditional authority, based on customs and long-standing practices; legal-rational authority, based on established laws and procedures; and charismatic authority, based on the personal appeal and leadership qualities of an individual.

Definition of Authority:

Definition of authority by some eminent personalities: -

1. According to Henry Fayol, “Authority is the right to give orders and powers to extract obedience.”

1. According to Allen, “Authority is the sum of powers and rights interested to make performance of work delegated.”

Basis of Authority:

Unlike mere power or coercion, authority is accepted and obeyed by the people, often seen as rightful or justified. The basis of authority refers to the foundational reasons or sources from which such legitimacy stems. These bases vary across societies and historical periods and may include elements like physical force, religion, democracy, and consent.

1. Physical Force – Authority based on physical force relies on coercion, fear, or the threat of violence to maintain control. It is often seen in military dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. Although it can enforce obedience, it lacks long-term legitimacy and often leads to instability or resistance.

2. Religion - Religious authority is derived from divine or spiritual beliefs. People obey leaders or laws because they believe these are ordained by God or a religious doctrine. Seen in theocracies like Iran, this form of authority can unify people through shared faith but may suppress individual freedoms and dissent.

3. Democracy - In democracy, authority comes from the people through elections and participation. Leaders are accountable, and laws reflect the public will. This form of authority is legitimate because it is based on majority consent and the principles of equality, justice, and rule of law.

4. Consent – Authority based on consent is accepted voluntarily by the people, often through a social contract. It emphasizes mutual agreement between the ruler and the ruled. Thinkers like Locke and Rousseau supported this idea, where government exists to serve and protect the rights of the people.

Each basis of authority reflects different ways in which power is justified and accepted. While force and religion may offer traditional or imposed authority, democracy and consent represent modern, participatory, and more legitimate forms of governance, essential for rule of law and justice.

Sources of Authority:

According to Max Weber, there are three types of sources of authority: -

1. Traditional – when the right to rule emerges from a continuous use of political power based on customs and traditions.

Eg.: Monarchy

2. Charismatic – when the right to rule springs from the great qualities of head and heart of the political leaders.

Eg.: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.

3. Legal-Rational – when the right to rule emerges from the constitutional rules.

Eg.: President of U.S. etc.

Characteristics:

Authority has certain core characteristics that define how it functions within political structures and institutions.

1. Legitimacy – Authority is always seen as legitimate by those who accept it. Unlike raw power, which may rely on coercion, authority is recognized as rightful and justified. People obey not out of fear, but because they believe in the validity of the command.

2. Formality – Authority operates within a defined structure or system, such as a legal or constitutional framework. It is institutionalized, whether in the form of government bodies, legal systems, or administrative offices and follows formal procedures.

3. Hierarchical Structure – Authority exists within a clear hierarchy. From top-level leaders to lower-level officials, each level of authority has defined roles and responsibilities. This ensures an organized and systematic exercise of power.

4. Legal Sanction – Most modern forms of authority are supported by law or constitutional provisions. Authority figures (like judges, police, or elected officials) derive their power from legal norms, ensuring that their actions are enforceable and accountable.

5. Right to Command and Expect Obedience – Authority includes the recognized right to issue commands and the expectation that these commands will be obeyed. Obedience is not forced but comes from an acknowledgment of the authority's legitimacy.

6. Based on Social Acceptance – Authority is effective only when it is accepted by the people. Social acceptance, whether due to tradition, religious belief, democratic election, or rational agreement, is essential for authority to function.

7. Continuity and Stability – Authority provides continuity in governance. Unlike temporary or situational power, authority tends to be stable and enduring, forming the backbone of long-term political institutions.

8. Influence over Behaviour – Authority shapes and regulates the behaviour of individuals and institutions. It guides how laws are interpreted, how orders are followed, and how duties are performed within a state.

The characteristics of authority such as legitimacy, hierarchy, legal sanction, and social acceptance, ensure that power is exercised responsibly and effectively within political and legal systems.

Sanctions:

For authority to function effectively, it must be supported by mechanisms that ensure compliance. These mechanisms are known as sanctions.

Sanctions are measures or responses applied by an authority to ensure that its rules, laws, or commands are followed. They serve both as a deterrent against disobedience and as a corrective action when laws are violated. Sanctions can be formal (legal penalties) or informal (social disapproval).

1. Legal Sanctions - These are formal punishments enforced by legal institutions (courts, police, administrative bodies).

Examples: Imprisonment, fines, cancellation of licenses, or civil penalties.

2. Social Sanctions – These involve societal reactions to behaviour that deviates from accepted norms.

Examples: Social exclusion, loss of reputation, or public criticism.

3. Moral or Ethical Sanctions - These arise from an individual’s conscience or internal moral compass, often influenced by religion, culture, or personal ethics.

Examples: Guilt, shame, or remorse for violating moral standards.

4. Positive Sanctions - These are rewards given to encourage desirable behaviour.

Examples: Awards, promotions, public praise, or legal protections for law-abiding citizens.

Sanctions are an integral part of authority in any political or legal system. They are the instruments through which rules are enforced and obedience is maintained. Whether legal, social, or moral, sanctions support the legitimacy of authority and help in the governance of society.

Q16. Analyse concept of negative and positive liberty.

Ans. Liberty generally refers to the freedom of individuals to act according to their own will. In political theory, philosophers distinguish between negative liberty and positive liberty, which represent two different ways of understanding freedom.

1. Negative Liberty

Negative liberty means being free from external interference. It is the absence of obstacles, coercion, or constraints imposed by others—especially by the government, society, or other individuals. The central idea is that a person is truly free when nobody stops them from doing what they want.

1. Example: Freedom of speech or freedom of movement, people can speak or travel as long as no one restricts them.
2. Thinkers like Isaiah Berlin emphasized that negative liberty is about “freedom from” constraints.

Key point: Negative liberty protects individuals from external control, but it does not guarantee that they have the ability or resources to actually do what they want.

2. Positive Liberty

Positive liberty means having the capacity or power to act according to one’s own will. It is not just freedom from interference but also freedom to realize one’s true potential. Positive liberty emphasizes self-mastery, self-determination, and opportunities that allow individuals to lead fulfilling lives.

1. Example: Access to education, healthcare, or employment opportunities enables people to make meaningful choices.
2. Thinkers like T.H. Green and Rousseau focused on positive liberty as “freedom to” achieve personal and social goals.

Key point: Positive liberty requires not just absence of obstacles, but also the presence of enabling conditions that allow individuals to act effectively.

Negative liberty protects individual choice and prevents oppression but may leave people powerless if they lack resources or opportunities.

Positive liberty ensures individuals can realize their potential but may require state intervention, which risks paternalism if misused.

Conclusion:

A balanced society needs both: negative liberty to protect individuals from coercion, and positive liberty to provide them with real opportunities to act meaningfully. Together, they form a comprehensive understanding of human freedom.

Q17. Write an essay on legal evolution of the concept of sovereignty.

Ans. Sovereignty is the central concept in the theory of the state. Derived from the Latin word superanus (meaning supreme), it traditionally refers to the absolute and uncontrolled power of the state to make laws and enforce them within its territory. However, the legal understanding of sovereignty has not remained static; it has evolved from the rigid absolutism of the 16th century to the pluralistic and limited concepts of the modern era.

Phase 1: The Rise of Monistic Sovereignty (Jean Bodin & Thomas Hobbes)

The legal evolution began in the 16th century with the French jurist Jean Bodin. Writing during a time of religious civil wars, Bodin defined sovereignty as "the supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by law." For Bodin, the sovereign was the ultimate law-maker and could not be bound by the laws he created.

This idea was taken further in the 17th century by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. In his work Leviathan, Hobbes argued that to escape the chaotic "state of nature," people surrendered all their rights to a sovereign. For Hobbes, legal sovereignty was absolute, indivisible, and inalienable. The sovereign’s command was law, and no individual could challenge it. This established the Monistic view: that in every state, there must be one single source of supreme legal authority.

Phase 2: The Austinian Theory (Legal Sovereignty)

The classical legal view reached its peak in the 19th century with John Austin. In his Lectures on Jurisprudence, Austin provided the most distinct legal definition:

"If a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign."

Austin’s theory stripped sovereignty of moral or ethical content. Law was simply "the command of the sovereign." This view emphasized that legal sovereignty must be determinate (clearly identifiable), absolute (unlimited), and indivisible (cannot be shared).

Phase 3: The Pluralist Challenge (Laski & MacIver)

In the 20th century, the legal evolution took a sharp turn. The Pluralists, led by thinkers like Harold Laski and R.M. MacIver, attacked the Austinian notion of a single, all-powerful sovereign.

They argued that the state is not the only association that governs human life. People also owe allegiance to their church, trade unions, and social clubs. Therefore, sovereignty is not absolute but is federal or pluralistic. Legally, the state cannot simply crush these other associations because it relies on their cooperation. Laski famously remarked that the Austinian theory was "artificial" and divorced from the reality of political life.

Phase 4: Contemporary Sovereignty and Globalization

Today, the legal concept of sovereignty has evolved further due to Constitutionalism and International Law.

1. Internal Limitations: In modern democracies, the "sovereign" is bound by the Constitution. We distinguish between Legal Sovereignty (the law-making body, like Parliament) and Political Sovereignty (the electorate). The legal sovereign is no longer absolute but is limited by fundamental rights and judicial review.
2. External Limitations: The rise of international organizations (like the UN), human rights treaties, and the global economy has eroded the old idea that a state can do whatever it wants within its borders. Sovereignty is now viewed as a responsibility rather than just a right to rule.

Conclusion

The legal journey of sovereignty has moved from Absolutism to Constitutionalism. While Bodin and Austin viewed sovereignty as a weapon of supreme command, modern political science views it as a tool for public service, limited by internal rights and external obligations. We have moved from a "Command of the Sovereign" to the "Rule of Law."

Q18. Discuss legal sources of the concept of state.

Ans. The "legal sources" of the concept of the state are essentially the primary legal documents, historical practices, and foundational philosophical theories that have shaped our modern understanding of what a state is and how it acquires its power and legitimacy.

1. Constitutions and Fundamental Laws (The Modern Legal Source)

The most direct and tangible legal source today is the Constitution of a given country.

1. Role: The constitution defines the structure of the state (legislative, executive, judicial), enumerates its powers, and establishes the fundamental relationship between the state and its citizens (e.g., through a Bill of Rights).
2. Example: The concept of sovereignty, i.e., the supreme and independent authority within a territory, is legally enshrined and distributed (or limited) by the constitution. It legally defines the state's territorial extent and its ultimate legal supremacy.

2. International Law and Treaties (The Global Legal Source)

The concept of the state is heavily influenced by the global legal framework, particularly since the 20th century.

1. Role: International Law, through conventions and treaties, provides the legal criteria for an entity to be formally recognized as a state. The most famous example is the Montevideo Convention (1933).
2. Montevideo Criteria: This convention legally defines a state as having:
3. A permanent population.
4. A defined territory.
5. A government.
6. The capacity to enter into relations with other states (demonstrating sovereignty).
7. Impact: This source standardizes the legal concept of the state across the world, making it the legal unit of the international system (like the United Nations).

3. Historical Legal Precedents and Common Law (The Evolutionary Source)

Legal concepts are often built upon centuries of tradition, legal rulings, and established practice.

1. Role: This includes the evolution of legal systems like Roman Law (which introduced concepts of public vs. private power, and imperium) and Common Law (which shaped notions of limited government and the rule of law).
2. Significance: Concepts like the 'King-in-Parliament' in Britain gradually evolved into the modern idea of state authority being vested in representative, accountable bodies, distinguishing the public office from the private ruler.

4. Social Contract Theory (The Philosophical/Theoretical Source)

While not a 'legal document' itself, the Social Contract is the most profound theoretical justification for the state's legal authority.

1. Role: Thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau provided the intellectual foundation for the state's legitimacy, arguing that its power is derived from the consent of the governed (the people).
2. Legal Legacy: This theory is the basis for key modern legal concepts:
3. Popular Sovereignty (the ultimate authority rests with the people).
4. Limited Government (the state’s power is constrained by the terms of the contract/constitution).

These four sources: Constitutions, International Law, Historical Precedents, and Social Contract Theory, work together to define and legitimize the state as the supreme, sovereign, and legally recognized political entity in the world today.