The State as Guardian of the Social Order: Conservatism in Indian Political Thought and Its Modern Manifestations
| DOI | 10.1177/2321023018762674 |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Conservatism in India |
Conservatism i n India
The State as Guardian of the
Social Order: Conservatism in
Indian Political Thought and
Its Modern Manifestations
Pradeep Chhibber1
Susan L. Ostermann2
Rahul Verma3
Abstract
Conservative Indian political thought, in addition to being alive and well in contemporary discourse,
has a long lineage. We explore the intellectual roots of this tradition by examining older and more
contemporary writings ranging from the Manusmriti and the Ramayana to those of Gandhi and Maududi
and place them in contrast to those of more liberal thinkers like Ambedkar and Nehru. We find that,
in particular, the conservative idea of the ‘limited state’ has an extensive history embedded in sub-
continental religions, religious practices and social norms. Central to the concept of the limited state
is the belief that the state is subservient to society, the belief that dharma is ontological prior to the
state, the belief that the king or leader must preserve the social order and the belief that individual
reform is the primary source of social change. An understanding of this set of beliefs, and the idea
of the limited state more generally, is important not only for understanding India’s past, but also for
insight into contemporary politics. We demonstrate the continued vitality of these concepts through an
examination of recent National Election Studies (NES) and World Values Survey (WVS) data.
Keywords
Indian political thought, constituent assembly debates, conservatism, Bharatiya Janata Party, Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh, Nehru, Gandhi, Karpatri Maharaj, Aurobindo
Introduction
Writing in 1978 Howard Erdman observed that Indian conservatism was a weak political force ‘despite
the country’s well rooted traditions’ (Erdman, 1978, p. 791). This appears to no longer be the case.
1 Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; Senior Visitor, IPERG, University of Barcelona, Spain.
2 Keough School of Global Affairs, University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
3 Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Studies in Indian Politics
6(1) 27–43
© 2018 Lokniti, Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2321023018762674
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/inp
Corresponding author:
Rahul Verma, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
E-mail: rahulverma@berkeley.edu
28 Studies in Indian Politics 6(1)
Conservative political ideas have found loud expression through the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). What,
however, are the conservative ideas that have found place in contemporary political discourse?4 In this
article, we argue that, there are powerful intellectual currents in Indian political thinking that have argued
for limits to the role and power of the state.5 The Mansumriti, the Arthashastra and the Mahabharata
offer clear guidelines to the limits of the role of the state. More contemporary manifestations, coming
from Aurobindo, Gandhi, Karpatri Maharaj, Maududi or Rajagopalchari, offer similar views regarding
the need to limit intervention by the state in social norms and in the redistribution of property. These
ideas are echoed in citizen attitudes that too seek limits to the extent to which the state should intervene
in social norms and practices and redistribute property.
The most striking aspect of this conservative tradition is that the state is subservient to society.6 The
king or the ruler has a far more limited role: he/she is the guardian and preserver of social order. The king
or the state is not an agent of social change. If the state is not an agent of social change, how social
change can be achieved, if at all? The conservative Indic tradition suggests that social change occurs not
at the hands of the state but by the transformation of individuals, a view most cogently theorized and
defended by Aurobindo and Gandhi. The state or the king, then, has one Raj Dharm, which, as in the
Mahabharata, ‘attempts to relate kingship with a morality and duty that is peculiar to the political
sphere’ (Singh, 2017, p. 75). The sources of ‘dharma include the Vedas, perception, and the conduct of
wise men’ (ibid.).7 Raj Dharm also requires the king to look after the poor and the infirm, and build the
infrastructure necessary for economic activity and political order.8 This view contrasts sharply with
the writings of others such as Ambedkar and Nehru, who advocate using state power to remake society
and the economy.9
We first define conservatism and place this current of intellectual thinking in the twentieth century
India. We then trace the origins of this thought. In turn, we emphasize three primary mandates of king-
ship, as first described in the Arthashastra, the Manusmriti, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, as well
4 We understand conservatism in a manner that is consistent with Jaffrelot (2017, p. 205) in the introduction to this series of articles
on conservatism. He used two sets of criteria to define conservatism: ‘the resilience of non-individualistic values (related to the
extended family ethos and caste hierarchies) and attachment to a religious worldview (reflected in the observation of traditional
rituals and the valourization of ancient beliefs)’.
5 Kaviraj (2005) too focuses on these texts to highlight the very different trajectories of the imaginary of the state in India and
Europe. In the paper, Kaviraj invokes an essay by Bhudev Mukhopadhyay in which Bhudev had argued that Indian and European
societies were organised around demonstrably different principles. Kaviraj further mentions that the discussion of Bhudev’s work
shows that Gandhi’s startling interventions on the question of modernity and the state had a long indigenous pan-Indian history.
6 Myron Weiner (1962) too points to the limited role of the state in Indic political theory when he writes:
Ancient texts tell us that government’s main function was to maintain the existing social order. The primary duty of a king, according to the
ninth-century Sukra Niti, consists of the protection of his subjects and the constant keeping under control of evil elements. Since the state was to
preserve existing order, much of the literature focused on the functions and organizations of administration… The reconciliation of conflicts was
not conceived of as part of the function of the king, for Hindu political theory did not conceive of conflict as being part of the traditional order.
7 The ‘king’s dharma is rooted in his varna-dharma, that is, in the dharma of the Kshatriya warrior’ (Singh, 2017, p. 67).
8 This articulation of the role of the state is clearly different from that of the ancient Greek or the more dominant modern European
intellectual tradition (Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, Hegel and Marx). For Aristotle, the polity was as a superior moral body, which
encompassed the family and the household. The contractarians envisioned society as being formed and realized through the state.
9 We see liberalism in a manner that is consistent with Kymlicka (1991). A liberal state is one in which ‘government treats people
as equals’ (Kymlicka, 1991, p. 13). For liberals, especially those raised in the enlightenment tradition, religion is not the defining
trait of humans, equality is and should be the norm, and any social inequalities are man-made and structural in nature. Hence, a
liberal state should use its power to rid society of its social and economic inequalities using the power of the state. Social change
should emanate from the state.
To continue reading
Request your trial