What is the difference between liberal and Marxist approach to study Indian Politics?

 LIBERAL APPROACH TO STUDY POLITICS 

Liberal approach to study Indian politics is a varient of systemic or structural functional approach . Thus, liberal approach when applied to study Indian politics can also be called Systemic approach. System approach emerged out of a broad movement in social sciences known as behavioural movement. It was introduced by David Easton and James S. Colman to study political systems in the developing countries in the 1950s-1960s. This framework also came to be known as modernization or development framework. Its mains purpose was to study development of modern political institutions in developing societies. The notion of development according to this perspective was different from economist’s notion of development. According to the economists development generally means growth rate or development of infrastructure; for political scientist influenced by behavioural movement it meant development of modern political institutions. Its main focus has been to see political institutions or organizations development, maintain themselves by reaching consensus within the factions of organization. In this approach, the political system comprises of political institutions, structures and processes and these three attributes keep interacting, conflicting and adjusting with each other, balancing and counter balancing to themselves. In such a situation the political system maintains, it does not break down. During the initial period of Independence, many political scientists have followed this approach to study Indian politics. Rajni Kothari’s Politics in India is one of the most important examples to study politics at India level. He advocates that the political system is resilient, and it survives and his book was mainly followed structural functional approach. Using this approach, Rajni Kothari categorised Congress party of the 1950s-1960s as Congress System. And the 1950s-1960s was called as the era of Congress dominance. C.B. Bhambhri (1974) critiqued Rajni Kothari’s approach to study Indian politics in a review of Kothari’s book Politics in India. According to Bhambhri, Kothari’s framework prohibits raising basic questions in Indian politics such as the class character of the state, location and distribution of political power, and the role of imperialism. In this framework economic aspects are also missing: Indian politics has been studied without the reference of role of trade unions, big industrial houses, lobbies of the rich farmers and landless peasants. He further adds that Kothari’s model of Indian democracy is similar to that of Dahl which says society is plural and democratic government operates like a market and this market is subject to all sorts of pulls and pressures. Bhambhri underlines that this limitation in Kothari’s analysis is due to the limitation or systemic or liberal approach. This approach does not look at the class conflict as a process of social change. Rather it focuses on how a system maintains itself or a consensus within its conflicting units. In response of Bhambhri’s critique, Kothari suggests that his book is not based on Marxist approach to politics or American brand of Functionalist approach. He has used Indian model which is different from both the Marxist and Capitalist. He also emphasised that there are two styles of theoretical analysis: polar and pluralistic. He has used pluralistic analysis to study state politics. During the 1970s, several individual scholars in case of studies of individual state or a group of states used the systemic framework, and they also included sub-system of state politics such as political parties, caste, religion, language, leadership, election and pressure groups. Study of the Congress party presented the most relevant example of applying liberal approach to study party as a system. Richard Sisson and Paul R. Brass studied Congress in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh respectively. However, by the end of the 1970s transformation of the society changed the character and nature of the state. Land reforms, green revolutions and welfare policies were largely responsible for such changes. But the liberal approach was unable to reflect these changes in study of Indian politics. Iqbal Narain (1976) applied this framework to analyse state politics in India. The liberal approach has undergone transformation after the 1970s. It is no longer averse to using the concept of the state instead of political system.

Following “the return of state” in the 1980s as Zoya Hasan observes that a section of literature focused on the study of the state. In this literature, unlike the classical Marxian perspective (you will read in unit 2) which views the state as an agent of the propertied classes, the state has been viewed as an autonomous institution. State was not an agent of classes or groups; rather it functions independently of and in the interest of all groups and classes. This approach is called Statist approach. But there are limitations of statist approach because it gives insufficient importance to the role of diverse groups in Indian society.

MARXIST APPROACH AND POLITICAL SCIENCE IN INDIA 

Both types of Marxist approaches – classical and neo-Marxist have been applied by to study Indian politics. The Marxist approach to explain Indian politics has been used by professional academics as well as by the Marxist political activists, politician or political parties. In unit 1, you have read about liberal approach. In comparison to Marxist approach, the liberal approach has been applied more to study Indian politics. Since the principal concern of the Marxist approach is to explain class relations and role of the state, principal issues addressed in this approach include changing class relations, movements of peasants and working classes, role and nature of the state including the relationship between the state and various classes. It is important to note that Marxist approach is used to address similar issues by academicians across disciplines in social sciences. Since the 1980s, a new strand of Neo-Marxist approach was added by historian Ranajit Guha, influenced by Gramsci through series of books known as Subaltern Studies. The scholars influenced by Subaltern approach argue that the subalterns i.e. ordinary people develop their consciousness. They take decisions according to their consciousness without being affected by external forces. Marxist scholars, who follow classical Marxist approach have criticised Subaltern approach as non-Marxist 

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)