Unit-VI : The Changing Nature of the Indian State (a)Developmental and Welfare Dimensions

The development and the emergence of India state from the imperial power can be view in this
chapter where the continuity and discontinuity of colonial legacy be study in details. We are going to
study how India takes up certain challenges as a sovereign nation. The trajectory of modern Indian
state follows the western pattern which have some different in practices. The Indian state needs
different understanding and proper analysis of its developmental aspects. This chapter will focus on
the developmental and welfare dimension vis-à-vis with the political development. India being a
socialist democratic state focuses on welfarism for the development of the state and its people.
From 1947 to 1991, political and economic aspects will be study under the dominance of one party
and the planned economy where the state intervene in the developmental and welfare dimension.
How the failure of the developmental state led to structural reform and the emergence of market
economy is one important concern. Post 1991 is another analysis where the structural reform took
its path with the emergence of globalization. The state continues to play a major role in neo-liberal
world which can be understood from the developmental aspect of the political economy in the 21st
century. We will be looking forward how the state plays an important role against security
challenges with respect to the role played by various state mechanisms in the presence of terror and
insurgency. Various institutional and legislations of the state to curb internal security issues will be
study under the coercive dimensions. The whole chapter is about the role of the state in the
developmental, welfare and coercive dimensions in the postcolonial era.

Introduction

With the end of colonial rule in India after nearly two hundred years of subjugation; political,
economy and social aspect of the newly independent nation was in disarray and shattered. Our
freedom fighters and leaders were facing challenges both from internal as well as external. Partition
was one such factor that made our leaders to acknowledge the importance of peace for country’s
development and prosperity. In spite of ample challenges that encircled India, our leaders were able
to frame our constitution which gives hopes for the people of young new nation. Jawaharlal Nehru,
the first Prime Minister of India was influenced by the Soviet type planned economy where the
central should command and steer the developmental process of the country. Our Constitution
provided us a parliamentary form of government. We followed Democratic Socialist policy with
federal structure where the states in India play an important role in shaping political economy. The
changing government also impact the policies of the country like the Nehruvian model of economy.
With the emergence of Indira Gandhi in the political scene, the state took another route to embark
for developmental processes. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added the word, ‘SOCIALIST,
SECULAR and FRATERNITY’ to our Preamble of the Constitution. Part-IV of our constitution
mentioned Directive Principles of State Policies. With the emergence of Janata Party government
various policies that were adopted by the previous government were scrapped. Indira Gandhi came
back to power with a policy, ‘GARIBI HATAO’ where she tried to remove inequality and bring about
social justice through government interventions. Schemes were introduced to remove poverty and
self-employment generation were created. The era of Gandhi was followed political instability and
economic slowing down. India’s economy undergoes structural reform where IMF and other
developed country need to intervene to rescue the crisis in India. India took an important measure
to reform India’s economy and this is when Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization came into
our political economy. India’s economy was improving gradually where market orient reform
existed. International factors also contribute while structuring our political economic strategy. One
such important event was the emergence of Cold war and the policy of Non-Alignment that India
was following. The disintegration of Soviet Union and the emergence of US hegemony made India to
follow and discarded certain policies that were followed by India. Our neighbouring countries like
China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh also made India to follow certain policies, and war with
Pakistan and China in 1962 and 1965.On the question of Bangladesh, India fought war again in 1971
and the strategic challenges poised by our neighbouring country like China arouse the question of
Nuclear power capability. The presence of international bodies, regional and multilateral
organization is also one of the concerns while following certain polices. When India loss cases on
Solar energy issues with USA in WTO, India economy and politics is not shape by domestic
institutions alone. The state remains at the centre in the development process with the support of
technological advancement and improvement in human resources. Developmental Dimension of
India Post-colonial state in India begins with the development of various sector that includes
agricultural and industrialization. It was Nehru who took a great important step to bring India into a
new dimension of growth and development. There was no doubt that majority of the population
(70%) directly engaged in agricultural sector. Land reform measures were introduced though not
that successful except in four states (Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, West Bengal, and Tripura). The
history of planning in India co-existed with the political consciousness of the congress party even
prior to independent. The Congress Working Committee in August, 1937 at its meeting in Wardha
adopted a resolution about the concern of industrial development in India. Jawaharlal Nehru and
Subhash Chandra Bose, the two stalwarts of the left within the congress put aside nagging of
ideological debate by arguing that the whole questions of industrial development should be resolved
within the framework of ‘all India industrial plan’. National Planning Committee was formed as
Nehru as its Chairman. The significant about the planning was that; (i) It determines the policy of the
state when India was still under the colonial power and policies of provincial congress government
which turned out to be a concrete idea of a nation state.(ii) Planning as an exercise of state policy
with technical evaluation and on scientific grounds. (iii) Appeal to committee of expert was an
important instrument in resolving a political debate which, much to the irritation of the emerging
state leadership of the congress was still refusing to go away. Though many professional
intelligentsias were clear about the importance of industrialization for development, yet Gandhi’s
idea of machinery commercialization and centralized state power as the curse of modern civilization
is respected, as mass movement against colonial rule needs the leadership of Gandhi. In the 1940s
the nationalist argued that in order to prosper and develop, firstly the foreign rule should be
abolished as it impedes for the development of India. At this juncture the economic exploitation was
the central point for national movement. Self-government consequently was legitimate because it is
a necessary condition for growth and development. Politics in India from 1947-1969 was
characterized as ‘the Congress system’. The party governed both at the centre and states. This
period was also a stage of developmental state which intervened in the economy, planning and
guiding its growth directly. It was legitimizing the post-colonial state by this intervention. India
choose soviet model of planning working within the framework of mixed economy. Industrial growth
was seen as a key for removal of poverty and a provision for welfarism. The war that broke out in
1962 and 1965 that coupled with poverty was a setback for industrial growth in India. Government
was forced to devalue rupee. Election in 1969 was a major challenges face by the Congress party
since India got independent as in nine states non-Congress government was formed. In 1971 General
election, Congress party under the leadership of Indira Gandhi came to power with a slogan ‘garibi
hatao’ (remove poverty). The structure of the Congress was different from the ‘congress system’ and
the state became the principle for bettering the condition of the people. At the same time public-
sector undertaking also continued to grow rapidly and the urban middle class and large section of
the working class became dependent upon its further expansion. With the food crisis in the 1960s
government intervention through subsidy of irrigation, seeds and fertilizers and government support
for minimum food grain was formulated. This is known as Green Revolution which was benefitted
better by the irrigated zone of Punjab, Haryana, Western Utter Pradesh. Under the leadership of
Indira Gandhi, Congress now become strongly centralized and power directly flow from the higher
command of the party. The developmental ideology of Nehru was now purveyed in a new rhetoric of
state socialism with the central executive structure of government playing the pivotal role. Welfare
packages were now targeted towards specific groups of the population such as SCs/STs, workers,
women and minorities. In spite of success in Green Revolution, certain sections of the societies were
facing economic hardship where agitation spread across the country. Indira Gandhi had to resort
with special laws such as the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and the central security forces.
The declaration of emergency was a major setback for Indira Gandhi and she was defeated by the
Janata Party though it was short lived. Pranab Bardhan (1984), Marxist scholars identified the
capitalists, the rich farmers, and the bureaucracy as the three dominant classes competing and
aligning with one another within a political space. Achin Vaniak (1990) also endorsed the dominant
coalition model, emphasizing the strength of the agrarian bourgeoisie important that could even
ascribe to its ability to mobilize rural electorate. Atul Kohli (1991) described the story of the state in
the 1980s as one in which, by surrendering the immediate electoral pressure exerted by various
social groups, democratic state institutions were allowed to decay, leading to all-round crisis of
governability. After Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984, Rajiv Gandhi took up the leadership of
Congress where it was short-lived. The politics of India was witnessing a coalition government since
1989. The National Front Government was forming a government where it was short-live due to lack
of political consensus. P.V. Narasimha Rao government in1991 was a minority government where
structural economic reform was introduced. Chakravarty (1987:7) says that in the early 1950s, when
the planning process was initiated in India, there was a general consensus on ‘commodity-centred’
approach. The central focus of development was meant to be placed on accumulation. Chakravarty
also says that in the specific context in which planning was taking place, accumulation had to
reconcile with legitimation. Accumulation and legitimation were the two important objectives of
planning in India. Political Economy in India Political Economy integrates the relationship between
the economic policies within the political framework of a country. Economic policies and economic
development were strongly influenced by the compulsion of political democracy. As the twentieth
century draws to a close and we approach a new millennium, market economy and political
democracy are buzz words not only in Eastern Europe and developing countries of Latin America,
Africa and Asia. This development in the political economy is due to the decline in planned economy
and excessive state intervention in the market. The initial year of India’s economy was shaped by the
believed that colonialism harms the Indian industry. There was opposition for trade liberalization
and limited itself within the domestic products to protect infant industry. The believed that infant
industry especially industry and high technology areas required substantial state support. Financial
support and protection from foreign industries was the responsibility of the government. Nehru was
in support of planning and promotion of powerful and technocratic Planning Commission and
greater involvement from the state for economic development of India. The First Five Year Plan from
1951-1956 was a very successful with agricultural output beyond the target, but the industrial sector
which was given more priority in the second Five Year Plan was successful yet agriculture shows
declined in fund allocation from 34.6% to 17.5% which decrease the output. Inflation, war with China
in 1962, war with Pakistan in 1965 and other internal issues like the demise of Nehru and Shastri
death, India was facing problems from different corner. Under US Public Law 480 programme, India
was importing food from US and even IMF came to the rescue after India was ready to follow certain
IMF mandatory. India needed to devalue rupee, liberalize importing, free some sector such as
fertilizer production from government control, reduced the size of public sector and increase foreign
investment. The government come to promote agriculture in the aftermath of devaluation which
was done under the advice of World Bank. India imported high-yielding seeds of wheat from Mexico
which was successful. The output in agricultural sector was increasing with the technological and
financial aid from US which India starts as Green Revolution. It was a very successful for the
government to solve the problem of food; still the benefits did not share by all section of the society.
The rich farmer of Punjab, Haryana and Western Utter Pradesh were the benefiter and at the same
time not all crops were given priority to this as wheat was the main crop. The rice growing regions of
other parts of the country still did not reap the benefits of Green Revolution. Apart from the Green
Revolution, Indira Gandhi nationalized certain sectors like steel, copper, banking, insurance and
wheat trade. In spite of all the economic measures taken up by the government, there was still
unacceptable high level of poverty and economic slowdown which coincides with the authoritarian
rule of Indira Gandhi. Political opposition is increasing and the movement of Jay Prakash Narayan in
some states were another stumbling block for the government to carry ahead their political and
economic policies. The highest level of state intervention in economic with political outrageous by
the people led to the downfall of Indira Gandhi government after the high handedness of emergency
imposed during the 1975-1977.Year of sluggish growth accompanied with a poor record in human
development had given rise to critical thinking the policy circles. Asian economies performed well
with their private initiative. Countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore experienced
economic growth during this time. From 1960s to 1980s the leaders continued to gradually and
often stealthily deregulate the economic activities of the private sector despite the socialist rhetoric.
The vast majority of Indian industrialists had become accustomed to beating the system of controls,
where licenses and approvals were required for production, imports and exports. A significant
liberalization measure included gradual deregulation of production decision made by the capitalists’
Industrial annual growth rate was 4.5% during 1961 and 1974 and in between 1975 to 1990 it was
5.9% annually. The practice of licensing or obtaining government policies permission was corrupt
rather than towards directing industrialization with a purpose. Rajiv Gandhi during his tenure as
Prime Minister, he reduced government control over industrial activity and took a step to improve
technological upgradation. Thirty industries and 82 pharmaceutical products were de-licensed
during his time as Prime Minister. The need for license was removed for investment up to rupees
250 million in developed region during the time of V.P. Singh. Suzuki Company of Japan collaborates
with Indian government despite various protest. Deregulation of telephone switches stared in the
1980s. A separate department was created for Department of Telecommunication under the
Ministry of Communication. In the 1980s ITs sector starts having advantages. The system of English
education and Engineering colleges were also increasing during this period and the availability of low
wages enabled the IT sector to start investment. There was easy way of importing computer and
software that facilitates this sector to grow. In the 1980s the annual agricultural growth rate was
3.4% which was higher than any other decade since India’s independence. Farmers were having
strong organization which can lobby with the government for procurement of prices and subsidies
during the short-lived of the Janata Party government. Leaders like Mahendra Singh Tikait, Sarad
Joshi, and M.D. Nanjundaswamay kept pressurizing the government and convincing the government
about rural agricultural backwardness. The new political landscape of the 1970s and 1980s saw not
only the decline of the Congress party and the rise of opposition parties, it also marked a period in
India’s political economy when a prospectively developmental state implode that lead to economic
reform in 1991. Post-Liberalization and the Structural Changes of India’s Political Economy Changes
in India’s economy can be seen even in the 1980s and it systemically started in 1991. There was a
change in domestic regulator system which was followed by a change in India’s global strategy.
Trade, FDI and technological changes were encouraging accordingly. Liberalization of the policy of
India’s economic affected the growth pattern of India. Economic changes in different sectors in India
economy, technological changes, the import substitution strategy all have transformed the
economic potential of the state in India. State played a crucial role in transforming the devastated
socio-politico culture after independence. The economic power of India grows manifold and
diversified since the reformed. Despite the conventional view that the state harmed the private
activities, it took a great challenges and courage to undergo such transformation and structural
reform. The reform led to the boom in India’s corporate sector, competitiveness and economic
growth by 1991. This structural reformed took place where the Congress party held insecure
majority. Democracies find it difficult to switch into trade friendly especially when the party in power
does not hold absolute majority in the era of coalition government. The trajectory of India’s
economic transition was different from the economic reforms under authoritarian regime. The
synergistic issue-linkage between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Executive, and Indian
industry at the time of foreign exchange crisis of 1991 was critical for initiating economic reform. The
growth of India’s economy in the 1970s and 1980s were not very satisfying to bring trade and
business along. The government could make little progress in bringing the condition to improve
entrepreneurship in India. The financial instability and the poor performance of India’s economy led
the steps towards economic structural reform. The situation during the 1980s prepared the ground
for a shift in economic policies after 1991. Atul Kholi had argued that the government of Indira
Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi tilt the economic policy in the direction of business. FDI courting was still
not the priority in the 1980s albeit few ventures were established which was benefited by few elite
classes. The Monopolies and Trade Practices Act made heard for business to expand in core sector
like chemicals and cement industries. At the same time poor people from the countryside migrated
to urban India for their survival. The economic growth that was not sustaining the problems of the
country was visible when the crisis was at it peak. Huge subsidies in the agricultural system (water,
fertilizer, power and PDS) led the economic growth of the 1980s into high fiscal deficit and balance
of payment crisis. Till 1990, comparatively India was highly protective of their trading practices.
Indian abroad was praised of their skills and innovative thinking, whereas Indian within India
condemned the poor performance within the Permit-License-Quota Raj. Under the initiative of
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), the business communities discourage the economic
mismanagement and limited choice in the market of the country. V.P. Singh’s National Front
Government attempt to reward mainly the rural backward section through reservation was one the
appeasement policy towards the farmers. By the early summer of 1991, India’s fiscal deficit stood
nearly 9% of GDP and the country had sufficiently just two weeks’ worth of imports. The rating
agency like Moody’s and Standard and Poor had downgraded India’s credit rating. The government
of Narasimha Rao moved steadily not in fast rate; adjust the economic structures of the country.
Efforts were made to liberalize India’s trading regime. More progress was made with industrial
policies. Licensing system was de-regularised and dismantled. The most notable and significant
outcome was opening door for foreign direct investment in India’s economy. Substantial tariff
liberalization especially in the intermediate goods was accompanied with the significant devaluation
of rupees. Tariff liberalization reduced the cost of imports pressure the Indian industries to become
more competitive. India’s merchandise exports doubled between 1991-1999. The presence of
foreign companies with the FDI creates job opportunities and employment to the unemployment
youth. The collaboration with foreign industries enabled the small Indian industries to access the
world class technology and support of infrastructural development. Industrialization can create
political awareness among people and encourage them to participate in political mobilization.
Industrialization results in rapid urbanization and modernization. India’s trade reform involved a
gradual reduction in trade protection with substantially increased incentives for export promotion.
India’s average weighted normal tariff came down heavily from 81.4% to 32.9% in between 1991-92
to 1995-96. Trade promotion was also facilitated by the convertibility of the rupee into current
account in 1994. Though there is improvement in the economic arena but there are still challenges
of inclusive growth and distribution of resources. India’s economic problem culminates one of the
biggest democratic nations of the world to undergo economic reform. Trade and private investment
orientation were born from the inability of import-substituting economic policy to deal with a
growing fiscal deficit, which bought India into a problem of balance of payment crisis when Gulf
crises were happening. After 1991 reform a sharp rise in the rate of economic growth was reported.
The GDP was between 7.5% and 8.5% in 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. Even the growth of industrial
sector was also stable at around 6% per annum. The emergence of service sector was one such that
drives the economy of India to grow. India as a Welfare State and Challenges Welfarism in India is a
vision dream by our freedom fighter and also a principle that is conceptualized in our constitution of
free India. There are some philosophical aspects which can be seen in the works of T.H. Marshall in
his ‘social citizenship’ which include the rights to ‘a modicum of economic welfare and security, to
the right to share the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the
standards prevailing in the society’. According to Jayal, philosophy of the state welfare in India is
grounded in the ideas of charity, benevolence and paternalism unlike the idea of ‘right’ that is in the
west. In India welfare measures cannot be claimed as a right. It is express in terms of need based
which the lower section of the societies are deprived of. A welfare state is a concept of government
in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of economic and social wellbeing
of its citizens. A welfare state is based on the principles of equality of opportunity and equitable
distribution of resources. It also focuses on the governmental responsibility for the upliftment of
those who are unable to avail themselves a good life. Under this system, the welfare of its citizens is
the responsibility of the state. India was not a welfare state prior independence. The British rule was
not very interested in protecting and promoting the welfare of the people. Whatever it did was in
keeping with the interests of the British colonial government and not in the interests of the people
of the ruled. When India got independence from the colonial power, it had innumerable problems
and insurmountable challenges. The social and economic inequality was all pervasive. Economically,
India’s situation was miserable. Socially also India was having a number of problems. There were
social inequalities and all the vulnerable sections of the society such as women, dalits, STs and
children were deprived of basic means of living. The Constitution makers were very much aware of
the problems. The framers of our constitution decided that India would be a welfare state. As you
must have seen, India is described as a “sovereign socialist secular democratic republic” in the
Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Accordingly, the Constitution has extensive provisions to ensure
social and economic welfare of Indian. In this regard two specific provisions have been introduced,
one in the form of Fundamental Rights enforceable in the court of law and the other as Directive
Principles of State Policy which direct the state to take up certain measures to improve the living
standard of the Indian people while formulating a policy. Some of the important measures taken up
by the state for the welfare of the people are: Integrated Child Development Service, Service for
Children in Need of Care and Protection, Creches for working and ailing mother’s children, Nutrition
Programmes, National Award in the field of children's welfare National Children Fund, UNICEF’s
Programmes. Various programmes for about 16.15 million disable people in the country such as,
programmes for the disable, early detection and treatment of diseases, providing free education to
children till 14 years of age. There are also various other programmes for women that includes the
establishment by the government of India the National Committee on the Status of Women in 1976.
Programmes such as establishment of hostel for working women, functional literacy for adult
women, training courses for rehabilitation of women, employment and income generating
production units, socio-economic programmes for women, vocational training programme etc.
Indian government launched many programmes to control the social problems including
programmes like- prison welfare schemes, suppression of immoral traffic, beggary prevention,
prohibition and drug abuse. The government also provides certain welfare schemes for Scheduled
Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. The constitution has prescribed certain protective
measure and safeguards for these classes. A number of programmes and schemes were introduced
under the various Five-Year Plans like Wage Generation Programme, IAY etc. Other social services
for the welfare of the society of minorities includes-establishment of the Minorities Finance and
Development Corporation in September 1994. 15-point programme for the welfare of the minorities
is being implemented Rural Health Services. A number of community health workers and doctors are
being sent to Rural Health Centre. Main attention is given to integrated health, maternity and child
care in rural areas social services for the welfare of the society. A major qualitative and quantitative
change in the housing and urban development sector include Housing for all, rural electrification,
and other rural infrastructural measures. Integrated Rural Development Programme provides
practical assistance to economically deprived families for the upgradation of skills via the Training for
Rural Youth for SelfEmployment (TRYSEM). Indian Government has implemented with an objective
of welfare. The Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, the Beti Bachao Andolan, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme, Public Distribution System and the National Food Security Act and
the establishment of public health units (PHU), the execution of vaccination campaign, and the
granting of oil and gas subsidies are all examples of such policies. While the government might not
have succeeded to the extent desired, the initiative to contribute some kind of additional benefit to
the people of India in fact is a welfare initiative. In spite of provisioning of many welfare measures,
expenditure on health, education has very less in comparison to the expenditure on health and
education in other South-east Asian countries in terms of percentage to GDP. Education expenditure
doesn’t reach even 5% till 2019 budget. There are various challenges that entangled around while
implementing welfare policies. India being a diverse country faces with lots of difficulties while
formulating a policy. Unstable coalition government at the centre and the emerging of regional
parties poses hindrance in terms of policy implementation. India being a member of the WTO and
other international and regional organization, it sometimes has to follow the mandates of being a
member which can cause a huge cripple to domestic economy. In terms of agricultural subsidies
given by the government to the farmers and other subsidies, be it in terms of power supply or water
generation, India has a setback and faces problems and got criticized in the world body for its
policies to curb poverty. Selective intervention sometime led to another group for protesting for the
fulfilment of certain claimed made by them. One such issue was with reservation. Some examples
which can be seen at present are the Jat in Haryana and some other north Indian states, the Patidar
in Gujarat, the Marathas in Maharashtra. India in the 21st Century Economically and politically, India
in the twenty-first century is very different country from that which emerged from colonial rule into
independence in 1947. By the year 2020 India is expected to be the fourth largest economy in the
world in terms of purchasing power parity. Developmental dimension too took different routes.
Apart from basic needs, focus has been shifted to accessibility of skilled labour, human capital
development and access to quality education in technical, role of information technology in human
capital development, skills development etc. Make in India, Skill India and others will be a huge
benefit if the government utilized the demographic dividend to leverage the growth of India in the
21st century. Policies in the absence of skills and technological support will be less benefit. Human
resources should be supplemented by good political environment to generate employable citizens.
The emerging trend of protectionism and political instability in middleeast countries with the rivalry
between China and USA is posing instability in the era of globalization. The following are a list of
challenges that India face as per the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States: “… India has
many challenges that it has yet to fully address, including poverty, corruption, violence and
discrimination against women and girls, an inefficient power generation and distribution system,
ineffective enforcement of intellectual property right, decades-long civil litigation dockets,
inadequate transport and agricultural infrastructure, limited non-agricultural employment
opportunities, high spending and poorly-targeted subsidies, inadequate availability of quality basic
and higher education, and accommodating rural-to-urban migration. India today is at the cusp of
significant developmental transitions. Choices made will fundamentally shape its future
developmental trajectory. The policy challenge today lies in identifying appropriate pathways and
institutional mechanisms to negotiate these transitions and set India on a path toward a sustainable,
inclusive future. While identifying appropriate pathways, India has to navigate important tensions in
our polity. One important tension is the often-conflicting needs of rural vs urban populations, best
demonstrated in the on-going agrarian crisis. The other challenge is institutional. India today needs
to build a new institutional framework to respond to changing needs while at the same time building
the state's capacity to manage basic, everyday tasks from health and education to building basic
infrastructure. India is dealing with transitions at a time when public discourse has become
increasingly sharp and polarised often blurring the lines between critical engagement and partisan
endorsement of ideas. This polarisation has made sober, objective evaluation of policy choices
confronting India today, difficult resulting in the adoption of short term and often unsustainable
quick fixes. Important Questions: Q.1. Explain how India emerged as a developmental state in post-
colonial time and explain the role of an individual in the developmental aspect prior to
1991. .......................................................................................................................................... .............
............................................................................................................................. ....................................
...................................................................................................... ...........................................................
............................................................................... Q.2. Discuss the political economy under the plan
period. .......................................................................................................................................... ...........
............................................................................................................................... ..................................
........................................................................................................ .........................................................
................................................................................. Q.3. What are the causes of economic reform in
India that took place in 1991? Explain the political economy of India after
1991. .......................................................................................................................................... .............
............................................................................................................................. ....................................
...................................................................................................... ...........................................................
...............................................................................

Downloaded by Rose Chucha (kevingonu.rose@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|21387039

132

Q.4. What is Socialism? Explain briefly India as a welfare

state. .......................................................................................................................................... .............
............................................................................................................................. ....................................
...................................................................................................... ...........................................................
............................................................................... Q.5. Is India still a developmental and welfare state
in 21st century?
Discuss. .......................................................................................................................................... ..........
................................................................................................................................ .................................
......................................................................................................... ........................................................
.................................................................................. Learning Outcome By end of the chapter student
will be able to understand:  How state act as an important mechanism for development in India. 
About the political economy of India before 1991 and post reform  India being following socialist
policies as a welfare measure  Comprehend how political development take place after British left
India.  Why India undergone structural economic reform in 1991.

Book Reference 1. P. Chatterjee (2011), The State, in N G Jayal and P Mehta (eds) The Oxford
Companion to Politics in India, OUP, New Delhi. pp. 3-14. 2. R. Kothari (1983). ‘The Crisis of the
Modern State and the Decline of Democracy’. 3. N.G. Jayal (ed.), Democracy in India, New Delhi,
Oxford University Press.Pp.2001 (sixth impression2012). pp. 101-127. 4. N.G. Jayal (2001), ‘The State
and Democracy in India or What Happened to Welfare, Secularism, and Development’. 5. In N.G.
Jayal (ed.), Democracy in India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press.Pp.2001 (sixth impression 2012).
Pp. 193-224. 6. S. Kaviraj (2010), The Trajectories of the Indian State. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press. 7. Zoya Hasan (ed) (2000), Politics and the State in India, New Delhi: Sage. 8. T. Byres (1994),
‘Introduction: Development Planning and the Interventionist State versus Liberalization and the Neo-
Liberal State: India, 1989-1996’in T. Byres(ed.) 9. Development Planning and Liberalization in India,
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp.1-35.

Downloaded by Rose Chucha (kevingonu.rose@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|21387039

(b)Coercive Dimensions

Introduction
Coercion is a complex phenomenon accompanied with power to control or to influence others. It
occurs in both interpersonal or institutional or political contexts. It is also defined as “to compel to
an act or choice”. It is a defining characteristic of a state. Coercive may take different forms like
preventing someone from doing something, or by physically construing an individual. Louis Krisberg
offers a succinct definition that captures the essence of coercive power: “Coercive involves trying to
make the other side yield by reason of fear or actual force”. It guarantees the reproduction of
domination and order and suppresses challenges to state authority. In the course of time, it helps to
create conditions that allow for voluntarily obedience to state and its legitimation. In 1947, when
India got independent from the British, it chose democracy based on various disciples and values as
a system of governance, it was thought to be a brave choice but one that would not last long. As the
country went to the polls for the second time in 1957, a commentator on Indian politics remarked
that "the odds are wholly against the survival of freedom . . . in fact, the issue is whether any Indian
state can survive at all”. Indeed, the testing has become more and more stringent. There is a rise in
social conflict, the economy does not show an adequate rate of growth, and democratic institutions,
now being cited as reasons for the inability to cope with the social and economic development, are
losing their democratic character and are unable to stem the tide of violence in society. This chapter
attempts to examine some of these issues and particularly focuses attention on the processes and
the institutions by which the Indian state has expanded its capacity to use coercive power against
the unruly. Coercive power is the ability to affect others to obtain preferred outcomes, and that can
be done through coercion and payment or attraction and persuasion by the state using different
kinds of instruments. Generally, people associate coercion with military power capabilities and
resources, but that is too reductive. As Thomas Schelling has argued that, "the difference between a
threat and a promise, between coercion and compensation, sometimes depends on where the
baseline is located." What is called coercion depends in part on the context of a power relationship.
In traditional Marxist theory coercion and force were described as the basic components of ruling
class domination. Gramsci, like a true Marxist, took this a step further when he divided the
superstructure into those institutions that were overtly coercive and those that were not. The
coercive ones, which were basically the public institutions such as the government, police, armed
forces and the legal system he regarded as the state or political society and the non coercive ones
were the others such as the churches, the schools, trade unions, political parties, cultural
associations, clubs, the family, NGOs etc. which he regarded as civil society. There are several areas
where the state has the power to mandate and enforce compliance. Security and law and order are
obvious examples, as are taxation, and some kinds of regulatory power, such as determining food
safety standards, would fall under this category. In the course of time, it helps to create conditions
that allow for voluntary obedience to laws and their legitimation. Coercion also undermines
legitimacy. Continuous use of force to suppress dissent, resolve social conflicts, and maintain law
and order may lead to the erosion of legitimacy and undermine the capacity of the state to govern.
The state sometimes stands in a paradoxical situation regarding the use of force and it may ensure
compliance, but at the same time, the frequency of its use may delegitimize the state. The modern
state applies coercive power to ensure its continuity and regulation. State and Non-State Actors
There are various organization that deals with different kinds of situations for both individual and a
group. The colonial legacy and its continuity can be seen in various organizational structures though
India had freed itself from the yolk of foreign rule since 1947. India being having a diverse culture,
religion, language, caste etc it is not an easy task for the state to maintain its control because of its
physiographic unevenness. Various mechanism has been applied by the state to restore peace and
order within its territory. Coercive power become a legitimate mechanism for a sovereign nation. In
India the legal institutions like police force, army, regiment, and legal institution like law court were
institutionalized during the British time. Some of the colonial legacy can be still visible in the present
modern state of India such as IPC which got institutionalized during the 1860 on the
recommendation of law commission of India. The main objective was to provide a general penal
code of India. IPC section 124 which lays down the punishment for sedition is one such example of
continuity of colonial legacy in India. The state uses various mechanism to curb both the legitimate
and illegitimate behaviour of its citizens. Various Act had been passed even after independence to
determine its supreme control over the people. Seeing the diverse culture and aspirations of the
country, unending protest and making a number of demands tangled with the coercive instrument
to suppress. Soon after India’s independent, regional aspirations, linguistic issues, partition between
India and Pakistan, famine, poverty, illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and the porous boundary
were the circumstances that employed the state and its forces to control the situation. There was
certain case where extreme way of dealing with the situation by the state. The state forces
sometime came into a controversial scandal and even committed to some fake encounter cases.
Even the political party too are not always free from that kind of illegitimate way of behaving
undemocratically which itself seen sometime in the nexus between the politicians and other
institutions. Especially at the time of election, the politician employed state mechanism to do favour
for their advantages.

Arvind Verma hasbrought out the modus operandi of state forces with related to power of arrest,
search, seizure and preventive detention. He finds certain sections of the IPC not reasonable ground
to applied state forces. It gives the state police an excessive behaviour to deal with the citizens
which sometime applied excessively. When a person does not actually commit a crime, he still faces
the police perpetration and sometime punished without ant committing the actual crime. With just a
mere suspicion an innocent person may incurred his whole life under the state atrocities. One such
example is about IPC section 124A, which framed innocent students and citizens to be anti-national.
This hindrance various social activist and charged with some criminal case. Democratic principles and
values have become less meaningful in the presence of various state forces when laws are
ambiguous. Sometime human rights got violated by the forces itself when it deals with various
situation. There are various cases where the law itself needs to be revisit and redefine according to
the change in time. In the presence of technological and communication advancement, the state
laws need to be codified with the existing cultural development and technological advancement. The
state sometimes involves in using various section under IPC to the extend where the political parties
tries to undermine the opponent. During election time many political parties who are enjoying
power use the state agencies to defame their opponent. Election can be such example to involved in
scandal which tries to undermine its political opponents by using state mechanism. The nature of the
Indian State has been shaped by a contestation between the logic of democracy and the logic of
domination. On one hand, the logic of democracy helped open up the possibility of a popular,
responsive and accountable government that would deliver on the promise of governance,
development and a levelling of hierarchies in a deeply unequal society. This was not just a normative
ideal evolved through the freedom movement and the various struggles for equality accompanying
it. The promise of democracy was underwritten by universal adult franchise and the mechanism of
open political competition and free and fair elections. Under conditions of an informed citizenry, a
free media and a level playing ground for political competition, the democratic political mechanism
was expected to create a political will on the part of the rulers to deliver what the citizens expected
them to do. There are high chances of civil uprising if the government fails to fulfil its promises
during election. In a society where an overwhelming majority of the electors are poor, democratic
politics was expected to direct state power towards a redistribution of resources and enhance access
to basic goods and services for the poor. In this sense, the logic of democracy has in it an ingrained
transformative element. In the Indian context, the idea of transformation was built much more
consciously in both the institutions and practices of democracy. A state that follows socialism when
its fails to deliver to the society there is high chances of popular movement like the Anna Hazare
Movement. The early twenty-first century national security environment has been characterized by
political coercion. Despite an abundance of political commentary on the various forms of non-state
coercion leveraged against the state, there is a lack of literature which distinguishes between the
mechanisms and the mediums of coercion. Frequently non-state movements seeking to coerce the
state are labelled by their tactics, not their strategies. Terrorists, insurgencies and social movements
are largely defined by the ways in which they seek to influence the state, rather than by their
political aims. Not all non-state actors seek political coercion, so not all examples of different group
types are considered. This approach also excludes political coercion by states, focusing on the non-
state actor as the primary unit of analysis. The study applies a general theory of political coercion,
which is defined as attempts to change the policies or action of a polity against its will, to the
strategies employed by terrorist groups, insurgencies, and social movements. This distinguishes non-
state actors’ strategic objectives from their actions and motives, which are variables that are often
used to differentiate between types of non-state actors and the labels commonly used to describe
them. It also allows for a comparative analysis of theoretical perspectives from the disciplines of
terrorism, insurgency and counterinsurgency, and social movements. The study finds that there is a
significant degree of overlap in the way that different disciplines conceptualize the mechanism of
political coercion by non-state actors. Studies of terrorism and counterterrorism focus more on the
notions of cost tolerance and collective punishment, while studies of insurgency focus on a contest
of legitimacy between actors, and social movement theory tend to link political objectives, social
capital, and a mechanism of influence to leverage against the state. Each discipline has a particular
vernacular for the mechanism of coercion, which is often linked to the means of coercion, but they
converge on three core theoretical components of compelling a polity to change its policies or
actions: exceeding resistance to change, using political or violent punishments, and withholding
legitimacy or consent from a government. South Korean democratic transition can be one such
example of state using coercive power. Since institutional democratization in 1987, it is
conventionally known that governmental authority has exercised its power through law and police
force, rather than inclusive or private violence. In other words, 1987 pro-democracy movement has
been a critical juncture for a step towards democratic consolidation. However, state coercion may
continually be exerted despite institutional specification by law in South Korean context. Explicit case
would be amendment of ‘the Law on Assembly and Demonstration’ which determines citizens’ right
to take collective action mostly against government actions. Insurgency Problem in North-East India,
State-Sponsored Terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and Naxal Movement Northeast India is the most
volatile and insurgency affected place in the country after Kashmir. It is the easternmost part of
India. The region is composed of eight states namely- Meghalaya, Manipur, Assam, Mizoram,
Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Sikkim. The fact that further jeopardizing mainland India’s
links with the region is the thriving militancy in most of the northeast states. The demands of the
different militant groups range from autonomy within the provisions of the Indian constitution to
outright secession. Such militant movements started early with India’s independence in 1947. At one
point, more than 120 militant groups operated in India’s northeast. In recent years, the Indian
government has had some success in achieving stability in the region, using tactics from negotiations
to military operations to root out militants. Nevertheless, the region remains a potential
tinderbox.Militants in India’s northeast once enjoyed vast popular support since they, in their
formative years, voiced genuine grievances of the people such as poor governance, alienation, lack
of development and an apathetic attitude from the central government; in recent years, however,
this influence has been reduced. Nevertheless, in most of the states in the northeast, anti-
government militants retain significant nuisance value and often indulge in successful strikes against
government interests. Security force operations using the army, state police forces and the
paramilitary forces remain the preferred mode of official response to contain militancy. A strong
military presence has been the feature of all the militancy-affected states in the region. The Union
government, as a matter of policy, reimburses security-related expenditure incurred by the states. It
also has an ongoing program for the modernization of the state police forces that sometimes
possess weapons of lesser sophistication than the militants. Interestingly, in all of the north-eastern
states, the ratio of policemen per 10,000 people is far above the national average.Military
operations in Mizoram, where the army reportedly launched air strikes to neutralize the M.N.F.
cadres, resulted in several fatalities and displacement among the civilian population. Military
operations in Nagaland, too, resulted in civilian fatalities and large-scale displacement. In Assam, in
the beginning of the 1990s, two military operations, Operation Rhino and Operation Bajrang, were
launched against U.L.F.A. militants. This forced U.L.F.A. to move out of the state and locate itself in
areas outside the country. However, such operations have not been able to post conclusive gains
against militancy in any of the states. In states like Manipur, militants have been able to carve out
vast stretches of “liberated zones” where only their laws and dictates hold sway.Manipur was the
second most violent state in the country behind Jammu and Kashmir. Still, neither Manipur, nor the
northeast, has figured prominently in the policymaking of the national leaders. For instance, fencing
the 4,095 kilometre (2,545 miles) long Indo-Bangladesh border, pitted as the solution to the
problems of cross-border militancy as well as illegal migration, has progressed at a tardy pace. While
the government’s military options have achieved only minimal results, lack of development
continues to alienate the people of the region further from the mainstream. The region has also
received little attention from either the national or the international media. Achievements by a
separate ministry created by the Indian government for the development of the region remain
minimal.On 9 June 2015, India announced that it had conducted a cross-border operation against
insurgents belonging to NSCN-K. According to India, the operation took place in Myanmar and it was
in response to the attacked of Dogra Regiment in Chandel district of Manipur.Based on precise
intelligence inputs, the Indian Air Force and 21 PARA (SF) carried a cross-border operation along the
India–Myanmar border and destroyed two Militant camps one each of NSCN (K) and KYKL, along the
India– Myanmar border. The operations were carried out inside the Myanmar territory along the
Nagaland and Manipur border at two locations. One of the locations is near Ukhrul in Manipur. The
army attacked two transit camps of the Naga militants. Terrorism targets persons and property
normally considered protected under the laws of war. Whether used as a strategic end, true
terrorism, sociologically speaking or as a weapons system within a larger insurgent campaign, terror
confronts the state with the same challenge: how to create a security net or grid that negates the
perpetrators’ ability to choose time and place.Critical restraints are manpower and resources.
Quantitative input, of course, is multiplied by qualitative factors. What results is that any insurgency
or counter-insurgency must be assessed at different levels: macro, meso, micro. A case will only exist
as an aggregate of its pieces. On the one hand, terror, as the driving force of insurgency by radical
Islamic elements appears to continue unabated in this, India’s northern-most State. On the other
hand, disaggregating the case demonstrates that India, after much experience, has evolved an
effective response posture. This is particularly visible in Jammu, the southern division of the larger
J&K.The insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir is an uprising or revolt against the Indian administration
of Jammu and Kashmir a region constituting the southern portion of the larger Kashmir region,
which has been the subject of a dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947.Jammu and Kashmir,
long breeding ground of separatist ambitions, has been wracked by the insurgency since 1989.
Although the failure of Indian governance and democracy lay at the root of the initial disaffection,
Pakistan played an important role in converting the latter into a fully developed insurgency. Some
insurgent groups in Kashmir support the complete independence, whereas others seek accession to
Pakistan.More explicitly, the roots of the insurgency are tied to a dispute over local autonomy.
Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s and by 1988 many of the
democratic reforms provided by the Indian government had been reversed and non-violent channels
for expressing discontent were limited and caused a dramatic increase in support for insurgents
advocating violent secession from India. In 1987, a disputed State election created a catalyst for the
insurgency when it resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly members forming armed
insurgent groups. In July 1988, a series of demonstrations, strikes and attacks on the Indian
government began the Kashmir insurgency, which during the 1990s escalated into the most
important internal security issue in India. Pakistan claims to be giving its "moral and diplomatic"
support to the separatist movement. The ISI of Pakistan has been accused by India and the
international community of supporting, supplying arms and training Mujahedeen tofight in Jammu
and Kashmir. In 2015, former President of Pakistan Pervez Musharaf admitted that Pakistan had
supported and trained insurgent groups in the 1990s. India has repeatedly called Pakistan to end its
"crossborder terrorism" in Kashmir.Several new militant groups with radical Islamic views emerged
and changed the ideological emphasis of the movement to Islamic. This had happened partly due to
a large number of Islamic "Jihadi" fighters (mujahadeen) who had entered the Kashmir valley
following the end of the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s.The conflict between the militants and the
Indian forces have led to large number of casualties. Many civilians have also died as a result of
being targeted by the various armed groups. The Naxalite movement in India owes its origins to a
small village in West Bengal called Naxalbari and thus, the movement acquired its name. The year
was 1967 when a small group of Communist Party of India (Marxist) members led by Charu
Mazumdar, KanuSanyal and Jangal Santhal decided to initiate an armed struggle against large
landowners and forcibly take away their lands and re-distribute it amongst the landless.KanuSanyal
call for an armed struggle got its first voice of support from Jangal Santhal, who at that time was the
President of Siliguri Kisan Sabha. On 18 June 1967, he gave a call for support to the armed struggle
and thus began a violent period in India that continues to have its impact on the lives of many
people even today.The initial response of the state government and subsequently, the central
government, was that this was a ‘law & order’ problem and believed that the uprising would be
short lived and could be crushed with force in a short period of time. The government completely
failed to read the situation and this is borne out by the statement in Lok Sabha on June 13 1967, by
the then Home Minister Y.B.Chavan, where he stated that this was a case of lawlessness and should
be contained and crushed by the local police force.Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warned,
“Naxalism is the greatest threat to our internal security.” The credit for the survival of the movement
for over 40 years must go to the Government, which has failed abysmally in addressing the causes
and conditions that sustain the movement. The problem has been in the Indian state's perception of
the causes of the Naxal movement.The Governments have enacted several laws to empower
themselves to combat Naxals. The West Bengal Government enacted the West Bengal (Prevention of
Violent activities) Act 1970 to arm itself to repress the uprising. No particular national act has been
enacted so far specifically to counter the Naxal movement, but various 'anti-terror' acts have been
used to curb Naxal violence and too often, to target sympathizers by stamping them as
Naxalites.However, in-spite of the government's muscle power and legal teeth, the Naxal movement
has continued to spread its base because the rural poor and oppressed identify with its ideology. In
other words, its inception, ideology, spread and sustenance are deeply rooted in socio-economic
factors.The government has constituted an 'Empowered Group of Ministers' to counter the problem
of Naxalism headed by the Home minister and select chief ministers. The government under the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967 amended in 2004 has banned the Communist Party
of India (Marxist-Leninist) - People's War and all its associated formations, and the Maoist
Communist Centre (MCC) and its front organizations. The government has also constituted a Task
force which will comprise of Nodal officers from the Naxal affected areas and officers from the IB,
SSB and the CRPF. There is also a Coordination Centre that was set up in 1998 headed by the Union
home minister with Chief Secretaries and DGPs of the Naxal affected areas for the coordination of
steps taken to control Naxal activities. The government has laid down a clear plan to tackle the left-
wing extremism. Various Acts and Constitutional Provisionsto Curb Non-State Actors Section 124Aof
the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. The Indian Penal Code was enacted in
1860, under the colonial rule. Section 124A forms part of Chapter VI of the Code which deals with
offences against the state. Chapter VI comprises sections from 121 to 130, wherein section 121A and
124A were introduced in 1870. The then British government in India feared that Muslim preachers
on the Indian subcontinent would wage a war against the government. Throughout the Raj, this
section was used to suppress activists in favour of freedom movement including Lokmanya
TilakandMahatma Gandhi, both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned. The section kept
drawing criticism in the independent India as well for being a hindrance to the right to freedom of
speech and expression.The authorities in India today are using Section 124A to stifle dissent. Section
124A criminalises anyone who “through words, either written or spoken, or by signs, or by visual
representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or
attempts to excite disaffection towards the government”, with the term disaffection meaning
“disloyalty and all feelings of enmity”.The misuse of sedition law is not specific to any one political
party in India. Since independence, many writers, activists and cartoonists have been accused of
sedition by governments across the country as a response to legitimate criticism. In the 1962 case
ofKedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India, upholding the constitutional
validity of 124A, ruled that a person could be prosecuted if they “incitement to violence or intention
or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace”. In its third attempt to
determine the validity of sedition, earlier last year, the Law Commission of India observed that while
dissent is essential to any democracy,law enforcement agencies must use sedition law judiciously.
Additionally, it also held that it is necessary for the Supreme Court to interpret the provisions of
sedition law. The report also notes that the United Kingdom has itself abolished its own law on
sedition almost a decade ago. While the powers of the Law Commission of India are limited to
providing suggestions and recommendations only, the Parliament of India, the law-making body of
the government, and the judiciary, the custodian of human rights, ought to revisit the justification of
this provision. With the indiscriminate use of archaic laws for dissenting against the government,
many have raised their voices against such arbitrary restrictions on the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression, which is granted under the Constitution of India. Given the
record of the ruling party in India, intolerance of criticism is only seeing a rise in the country with
authorities clamping down on free speech behind the garb of disloyalty and anti-national
sentiments. In 2015, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which criminalised online
speech considered “grossly offensive”, “menacing”, and caused “annoyance”, was struck down
asunconstitutionaldue to the ambiguity of such terms. The Supreme Court of India held that any
restrictions on speech could only be deemed reasonable under Section 19(2) of the Constitution of
India. While the sedition law suffers a similar problem with definition, along with a lack of procedural
safeguards, the Supreme Court has argued time and again that seditious words or actions are likely
to threaten public order or incite violence, which is a reasonable restriction on free speech.There is a
growing demand for amending the sedition law or repealing this relic of the past. However, there is
an urgent necessity to first address the systemic flaws to ensure that these laws are not misused so
as to mock free speech in India. Armed Forces Special Power Act was enacted in1958 which is still
implemented in several North-eastern states and Jammu and Kashmir despite several protest from
the citizens.COFEPOSA in 1974, MISA in 1971 and National Security Act 1980 are part of the Act to
suppress insurgencies and other unlawful activities which wage war against thestate.Sixteenth
Amendment Act 1963empowered the state to make laws with regards to ‘reasonable limitation’
oncertain Fundamental Rights Art. 19 (1) (a), (b),(c) in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of
India. In 1967, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was passed which enhanced the central
executive to prosecute those who indulged in unlawful activities and associations such as any
secessionist movement through words or signs. Apart from UAPA there are various others laws that
is being implemented in various states inIndia such as MCOCA, AFSPA, and CSPAS. Another notable
Act was Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) which was enacted in 1985 in the
backdrop of Khalistan Movement in Punjab. TADA was implemented across India until it was lapsed
in 1995. In 2002, Prevention of Terrorist Act (POTA) came up when World Trade Centre was attacked
by the terrorist and India’s Parliament attacked. Conclusion Coercive force though might sometime
pose endanger and threats to the civil liberties and rights, it is still useful in situations of imminent
danger. In the case of India there are various terrorist group and separatist movement, it is the duty
of the state to protect its territory and people from such danger. Forces ensures compliance but can
also delegitimize the state.Like the parents are rendered to some form of punishment to their
children and even counter sometime if they disobey the laws for correcting them.Coercion also
useful when dispute involves something of great value to the threatened. The state might sometime
resort to some form of violence and force to curb those citizens who are disobeying the law and
order. Andterrorism needs different mechanism to deal with unlike the normal citizen who violates
law. Although coercive power may be impressive, it is inherently useless in some situation. Karl
Deutsch points to the ‘autonomous probability’ of behaviour hat a threat is meant to inhabits, ‘even
the most intense and credible threats may not stop people from sneezing; nor might they stop from
social revolutions…Related factors are those of the needs and the motivation for the behaviours that
the threat is intend to prevent’. To elaborate further, it might be helpless to stop from sneezing
because a person doesn’t have the ability to control sneezing. It might be difficult to stop a person
from defying repressive power, because need of selfdetermination is greater than a fear of power. In
the first case it is beyond human control, while in the second case a person simply not to choose to
obey. To quote Dwight Eisenhower’s statement, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who and are not fed, those who are
cold and not clothed”. There are heavy social, economic, political and infrastructural damaged
caused by coercive power. When people are forced to obey the state power under several threats,
the actual will is still not under-control. When the state neglect then the people will grasp that
opportunity to start aggression. India is a democratic nation where people are enjoying certain
liberties and rights, the state interference just for mere exercising of freedom and rights is
unjustifiable whereas there are certain section of the constitutional provisions that needs
amendment to go inline with the change in society and cultural advancement. In a democracy, which
is based on consent, state leaders have to be judicious in the use of force, otherwise the very
stability of the state might be threatened.Frequent used of state instrument to limit the exercise of
civil liberties should be check by the law institution like High Court and Supreme Court. In India,
when the legislative and executive means to get justice got exhausted, still there we have a legal
institution to have a final word on the grievance of the people.