TOPIC INFO (UGC NET)
TOPIC INFO – UGC NET (Political Science)
SUB-TOPIC INFO – Political Theory (UNIT 3)
CONTENT TYPE – Short Notes
What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)
1. The Concept of Freedom
1.1. Limitations on Freedom
1.2. Resistance Against the State
2. The Concept of Equality
2.1. Equality: Abstract and Concrete
2.2. Equality: Inward and Outward. Material and Spiritual
2.3. Equality: Legal, Political and Economic
2.4. Methods of Equality
2.5. Measures for the Achievement of Equality
3. The Concept of Four-Pillar State
3.1. Democracy and Socialism
3.2. Federal Structure
3.3. The Four-Pillar State: The Village, the District, the Province and the Centre
Note: The First Topic of Unit 1 is Free.
Access This Topic With Any Subscription Below:
- UGC NET Political Science
- UGC NET Political Science + Book Notes
Ram Manohar Lohia
Indian Political Thought (UNIT 3)
LANGUAGE
Table of Contents
The Concept of Freedom
- Ram Manohar Lohia believed self-realization or self-development was possible only in an atmosphere of freedom.
- Liberty was the necessary condition for human awareness or self-realization.
- Equality was essential for the enjoyment of freedom and was inseparable from it.
- A society where individuals had equal opportunities for self-realization was also a society of liberty.
- Fulfillment of equality was possible only under the state.
- Lohia divided freedom into two parts: non-property matters and property-related matters.
- He allowed full freedom in non-property matters, such as house-keeping, entertainment, marriage, and livelihood.
- He asserted that rights of privacy and freedom should be recognized in all spheres not directly connected with property.
- Lohia supported individual liberty in choosing the membership of any political party.
- He strongly supported the right to commit suicide as part of individual freedom in non-property matters.
- Lohia argued that privacy in non-property matters may have indirect effects on the institution of property, but it should not be encroached upon due to social sentiments.
- The second part of freedom for Lohia was connected with property, where full freedom was not allowed.
- He disagreed with the capitalist and communist views on property and individual freedom.
- He criticized both systems for failing to balance individual good and social good.
- Lohia tried to reconcile individual and social good by allowing full freedom in non-property matters and state control in property matters.
- The line between property and non-property matters is hard to draw.
- Lohia’s support of suicide as a right for everyone, including children, is problematic as it affects the family and creates social issues.
- Unlimited freedom in non-property matters could create chaos and anarchy.
- Some state restraint in non-property matters is necessary for the sake of both individual and society.
- Lohia’s argument rested on a negative conception of liberty, where freedom meant the absence of external restraint.
- He believed the individual was not responsible to society in non-property matters, seeing society as a collection of self-seeking individuals.
- For Lohia, individuality was both a personal and social good, and individual development should contribute to social happiness.
- He advocated for liberty for backward peoples or races, offering preferential opportunity to them for a time.
- Lohia supported individual initiative while acknowledging the need for social progress.
- He reacted against over-centralization and believed in local autonomy to preserve individual freedom.
- While he opposed capitalism and supported economic equality, Lohia disliked excessive state control.
- Lohia retained the idea of individual initiative and freedom while promoting social good.
- For Lohia, individuals were rational beings who must work for their own development with proper opportunities.
- Freedom was for the realization of self-consciousness and not for animal desires.
- Moral freedom arose when individuals remained aware of others while considering their own interests.
- Individual good was inseparable from social good, and moral action was always based on reason, with reference to others in society.