This book is placing in the hands of aspirants of the Government Services Examinations.

This book has been specifically written to cater to the growing requirements of Candidates appearing for the Civil Services Examinations (Preliminary and Main) conducted by the State Public Service Commission. Additionally, Examinations held by Judicial Services Examination, UGC, Banks, and/or others. It directly and concisely covers the ‘Indian Polity’ section of the paper on General Studies and is also useful for certain optional subjects like Political Science and Public Administration.

This nutshell edition would enable readers to acquire a complete understanding of the subject. It covers all dimensions (constitutional, non-constitutional, political, and administrative) of the subject.

A conscious effort has been made to make the contents of this book relevant & authentic. Moreover, this book is a nutshell on Indian Polity in notes form (not elaborated vastly) so that it is easy to comprehend or grasp over the topic. The book has been prepared with tabulations on various aspects, for ease of clarity of the presentation.

I wholeheartedly welcome all constructive comments and concrete suggestions from the readers of this book.

12 views0 comments
  • Santushti Raj Thapar

Santushti Thapar

Research Scholar

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was founded in 1925 by Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, though RSS is prominently noticeable by his successor, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar. However, Hedgewar is known to as Doctorji within the RSS, Golwalkar is referred as Guruji. After Hedgewar’s death, Golwalkar took the charge as the RSS’s chief, in 1940, and held the post till his own death, in 1973. He appeared to be a leader, a scientist & a spiritual man. But other than being a swayamsevak, he had no other desire.

Once a Communist leader quoted to him:

“You know what is wrong with your Guruji?”

And the same person replied: “His unambitiousness.”

This shows his firm character free of want. If he had only desire, it would be—“complete swayamsevak.” “Swayamsevak” means the surrender of the self, the devotion of one’s life to principles. After he joined the Sangh, he asserted: “I have Dr Hedgewar’s life and his principles before me.” This total devotion was the source of his life as a complete swayamsevak.

On March 8, 1947, a rally of RSS workers of the Delhi Province was held. Some 100,000 volunteers participated.

Golwalkar, in his speech, said that if the Hindus perished, the Sangh would perish. Golwalkar added that 'the disunity among Hindus in the Punjab was the cause of the present calamity. The Sangh should unite the Hindus and the capitalists should help by funds' ( C. I. D. Report for and March 8 and 9, 1947, in File 137, Delhi Police Records, 5th Instalment, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library).

Since nationalism is the issue under debate now a days under Modi regime, let us start with his thought with understanding of his book ‘Bunch of Thought’ Territorial nationalism is, to Golwalkar, the worst by-product of modernity. “It is like attempting to create a novel animal by joining the head of a monkey and the legs of a bullock to the trunk of an elephant!" Such “unnatural, unscientific" efforts to mechanically unite territories can only result in a “hideous corpse". And the sole resultant activity, he adds colourfully, is that of “germs and bacteria breeding in (a) decomposing" polity. Instead, we must acknowledge that a nation is “not a mere bundle of political and economic rights"—it entails culture as well. And in India, this culture is “ancient and sublime" Hinduism, full of love and “free from any spirit of reaction". In other words, instead of acting like bacteria in that dead body called a pluralistic democracy, our salvation lies in embracing Hindu dharmocracy.

Golwalkar’s ‘Bunch Of Thoughts’

PM Narendra Modi authored a book titled Jyotipunj (Beams of Light) in 2008, in which 16 RSS men were glorified with whom he was inspired. The longest piece was on Golwalkar, “We are not capable of knowing or analysing Guruji’s life. This is a humble attempt to recount those beautiful moments of his life.” In 2004, MG Vaidya, currently the RSS’s leading ideologue, articulated “described Shri Guruji as the biggest gift to Hindu society in the 20th century. He said that the credit for today’s importance of the Sangh in national politics should be given to Shri Guruji, who worked tirelessly for spreading the Sangh work in every nook and corner of the country.”

Apart all, Golwalkar spoke promptly against untouchability also, As for the varna system, Golwalkar argued that it gave Indian society an inherent strength to resist foreign influences. However, he decried the appeal for votes on the basis of caste. “Even the state machinery is being prostituted for further widening these dissensions,” he wrote. “Separatist consciousness breeding jealousy and conflict is being fostered in sections of our people by naming them Harijans, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and so on and by parading the gift of special concessions to them in a bid to make them all their slaves with the lure of money.”

His solution was one that the RSS still endorses, downplaying it only because of the electoral problems it creates. “Continued special privileges on the basis of caste only, is bound to create vested interests in them in remaining as a separate entity,” he wrote. “That would harm their integration with the rest of the society.” Arguing that there was no caste “without its own poor, the needy and the destitute,” he suggested that “privileges should be based on the economic conditions of the people.” Such a solution would “ease out matters and the heart-burning among others that the so-called Harijans alone are enjoying privileges will also be removed.”

On the contrary, Golwalkar’s critics have seen him rather differently. The writer and historian Ramchandra Guha has referred to him as the “guru of hate,” while the political scientist Jyotirmaya Sharma titled his book on Golwalkar’s ideology Terrifying Vision. Today, when the RSS wields more control than it ever has over Indian politics and society, matching or perhaps even exceeding the Congress at its zenith, the India that we are dealing with, for better or worse, does not make sense without making sense of Golwalkar. According to the ICPR, the RSS is “one of the strongest religious, cultural and social organizations of the world making determined efforts to inculcate in its followers a burning devotion to India and its national ethos”.

Jumping to conclusions, admittedly, before taking his views into the consideration for young India it is also to understand that is there a place for modern democratic politics? It is a view that wishes to mould people into perfect human beings. For a lot of people, that might, indeed, be the aspiration after life in this world is over. But for most people, life is a struggle to live with our respective imperfections and not let these, except in extreme cases, come in the way of excluding or dehumanising people. Plus, Modern nationalism is a Western idea from which the youth is admired. All Indian nationalists were influenced by some strand or the other of nationalism. Some of them added their inputs to the idea and moulded it in creative ways. At the end, moreover, on the views of nationalism, Golwalkar, as its ideologue, has been “much misunderstood and maligned by his adversaries,” it says. (Indian Council of Philosophical Research convenes a seminar). At the end I will suggest that either the Indian secular forces need to re-think their strategy and must have inclusive and have a clear vision to deal with communalism and polarisation or they must reconsider the ideology of Guruji Golwalkar which givs India a strong sense of identity with a bond of fraternity.

14 views0 comments
  • Santushti Raj Thapar

Page No. 4

Undignified Role of Army in Sham Democracy: First time in Pak History, Special Court Hands Death Penalty to Pervez Musharraf in Treason CasePervez Musharraf is accused of unlawfully suspending the constitution and instituting emergency rule in 2007. Though, last month Musharraf's trial in the high treason case was declared as "unconstitutional" by the LHC, leading to the annulment of the death sentence against the former president. On his outgo from Pakistan for his treatment "It mentioned that Musharraf is neither a ‘fugitive from law’, nor is he a ‘proclaimed offender’ or ‘absconder’ – particularly because he left Pakistan for medical treatment, with permission of the complainant," the report quoted Musharraf's petition as saying.An attorney for the former military ruler confirmed the development, saying that his client can appeal against the Registrar office’s decision within 30 days, the paper reported.Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan from 1999 to 2008, was the first military dictator convicted for subverting the Constitution. If we glance with tensions continuing to soar in Pakistan, it is unending. In Aug, 2018 Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-eInsaf party won the highest number of seats in parliamentary elections which was second consecutive constitutional transfer of power from one civilian government to another in Pakistan. Since he faced uncountable challenges. Before it finally, one more time the puppet judiciary of Pakistan’s army found the way to send so called civilian Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in behind the bars being charged of corruption, although one knows the main reason is being critic of army. It is very difficult to say whether it will help him in forthcoming election which is held on 25th July or whether this will affect his credibility for winning the game of thrones. With a compiled judiciary that was abruptly clear that Nawaz Sharif would had been knocked out, and it happened. After 2016 there has been a friction in Santushti Thapar between Sharif and army so it was quite obvious to cease him to govern in the army dominated sham democracy. In this century this would be fourth general election 2002, 2008, 2013 and now forthcoming election. But still nothing had changed. It was the preceding decades of 90s, between 1988 and 1997. There is continuity in govt but how significant or how much, it’s a question? something where one can discuss definitely not withstanding this continuity there is also be destruction in the tenure of chief executive or the Prime Minister, destruction following the 2008 election and the changes in the prime minister because of nonpolitical factor. Similarly, during the current tenure of the govt. election 2013 you had similar destruction because of non-political factor what we can also call it religious factors and the friction with the army. We have seen in the last decade and decade and a half at least superficial. They appear to be real strengthening come in institution like the elections, like the judiciary, like some extent the Media. Now again does they suggest real strengthening of this institution or does it suggest the Pakistan military more able to set in pieces in place in Pakistan in the way it could decade in the earlier, rely on this countervailing institution to keep the check on political parties. These are the obvious question which come up in the internal dynamics in Pakistan or the past in 4-5 years or the other factors. Civilian PM is none less than the puppet of army in Pakistan. If we follow the history of Pakistan in detail that army had always played very larger life role in any democracy that military should that in case of Pakistan. Certain instances from history there have been major instances where civilian Prime Minister were powerful enough for the military to back off. One was Jinnah Sahab the founder, other is Zulfikar Bhutto, he was enough powerful, but there is a line not to cross the army. If you do so, you will be quickly cease to govern. Benazir Bhutto faced twice, Nawaz is facing now and has faced in the past also. In her second tenure Benazir was not allowed to swear in for two weeks even she had given the assurance to the army that she will keep herself away from the matter of security issues, America Pak relations, China Pak relation or the matter Afghanistan and also the nuclear issue. (Maroof Raza). Now the army this at once a professional army as well as a political army. It is an army that beliefs and says it openly, it is the ultimate defender of territory of Pakistan but also the ultimate defender of ideology of Pakistan. That’s a fact that there is a Pakistani army and it is an army that believe that it holds the country together. As world knows Pakistan army controls its every institution whether it is political, security, economic, international issues, judiciary, bureaucracy or any institution. That’s a country where military holding the country not a political class and of course the army plays the role to the constitution but it feels that it is not bound by the constitution, when it comes to the interest of Pakistan, it defines in it. It feels that its duty and obligation to it and today its possible that army will took over. It is army that Pakistan put down and army which destroyed the constitution. Nasim Zehra book on Kargil to coup, before the coup Nawaz Sharif dismissed the Musharraf in 1999. He said that he was the constitutional PM by Pakistan, he was entitled to dismiss the army chief. In retaliation army replied, ‘’yes, it is constitutionally you do, but when it comes to the interest of Pakistan, we are not bound by the constitution. So even today army act that on security and on foreign policy. It is not the govt of Sharif that any other PM will prevail but it will only army who will prevail. That dynamic will not change. Every institution even an elected prime Minister are a puppet of army. Gen. Durrani says, it is a military holding Pakistan. The Pakistan army is a patriotic institution that it is a selfish institute. Pakistani civilian may know this reality, but army chief a constantly there is a projection, the army chief being, larger in life. So, you had Raheel Sharif with holding all over Pakistan and today the ‘Bajwa doctrine’. Army lays down the red lines and those red lines cannot be crossed without paying a cost. Pakistan never got independence, history prover it was always controlled by army. Army had always been a symbol of Pakistan, symbol of shame in Pakistan, defeat of Pakistan. Military commander and army leaders who architecture the defeat Pakistan. In 1965 it was Ayub khan. In 1971 Yahaya Khan, Bangladesh butcher Gen. Tikka Khan, 1999 Gen. Musharraf. Despite successive defeat because of army and army chief Pakistan always face red phased. (Sudhanshu Trivedi) Army has the largest business interest, business empire even the greatest business belongs to army. They run biggest banks, airlines, logistic companies, cement factories and all is accepted. No one question it. No one raises issues in public discourse and public interest. And also, there is no binary. Pakistan vote for PM but they know its ultimate defender is army. But there is also a time when Since 2007, 2008 Pakistan’s having changing perception about the army. (in the eyes of Pak). Pakistani army underwent the significant and constant erosion in the public esteem in which it was held and this was primarily because of their inability to control the internal security situation in Pakistan and from 2006 and 2007 till about 2015. You had complete collapse of public morale in Pakistan where internal security was concerned constant stream of major terrorist attacks affecting all institution in Pakistan. Whether the military, judiciary, religious parties, civil society targets etc. the collapse of internal security loose the public trust. Although after 2015 improvement of security action was dramatic and directly co related the public esteem. Poor Ideologies of the State Pakistan is not a functional state. It is an ideological state. Hussain Haqqani in his book ‘Reimagining Pakistan’, he says, ‘’ the ideology of Pakistan is based on two things, first, it is based on ISLAM. Second, it is based on Anti Indianism. Ideology of permanent enmity of India Pakistan always believes in waging war against India. We have for decades our leading strategic idea, the idea of strong and stable Pakistan. This is India’s interest. There is no other country has an interest like this except ours. Do we want strong and stable adversary? (Ajay Sahni). Once a talk of Zulfikar with Arabs, Zulfikar had words if Pak breaks up who we are? Arabs will be considered as Arabs. but what about Pakistanis – will they remain Indians? No, it cannot be accepted. Yes, there is structural basis through Pakistan and India committed mistakes when India overlooked the structural basis at the same time there are contingent factor, world is changed, world is not static while the Pakistan is not static. So, there are changing social, economic and political changes, even the army’s changing, but while focusing on only on these changing and making policy as we often do in India relating to Pakistan only on contingent factors and contingent situation overlooking the structural basis of Pakistan we fall into grave error and actually that has been the real problem over the last 70 years. On the other hand, India looking for magical solution with Pakistan. Let us understand agreement with Pakistan, has any single be solved? Jihadis will take over the Pakistan one day and nuclear possession also. These things don’t happen overnight. The process of strategic transportation is a gradual process, it is a continuous and marginal alteration of equations of power and that is what we need to focus on, this is what Pakistan is, some of the countries understand this but unfortunately India does not. India should abandon all the trends of delicacy of language and should not be worried about calling Pakistan enemy and adversary state. Ideology of ISLAM Progressively role of Islamic ideology and sharia rule became not the practice but declare objective of every entity of Pakistan. There is no single entity in Pakistan. When it comes to India since we are immediate neighbour, we have to be cautious about what is happening in Pakistan all the time. Pakistan has amazingly exploited international environment. Apart from its engagement in terrorism and nuclear terrorism Pakistan has no relevant story in global connectivity. Radicalisation has been a process and it is ongoing proceeding the birth of Pakistan. Roots of Islamisation was the cause of it. Islamisation is the principle tool to secure the ends of Pak but you can’t secure the country on the name of jihad. It is not a secular entity. Even those who were secular there, who were constitutional there they could not secure the voice of constitution. Jinnah, Ayub Khan, Bhutto were secular but they were guided by Islam and each of these instrumentalized Islam. Almost the Pakistani trajectory is negative this is what we have to understand. Terrorism is an internally and externally invested there. We have no. of ethnonationalist movement. Islamization and Talibanization is across the country. In 1948, 77% population was Muslim, 23% others including 15% of Hindus. By 2017 we will have 96.4% Muslim including Hindus and Christians 1.6% each. There is no place of others. Pakistan is a state of tremendous of erosion of it structure of govt. high corruption and highly insecure. When assessing Pakistan, it is declining state in South Asia despite a nuclear state, despite an army. It is a nation without an essential sign of power come from the profile of evacuation. Form decades it has been a rich beggar. Kaplan – Pakistan is a country of dysfunctional culture. In 1999 assessment and study by U.N report by 2020 Pakistan will be collapsed, paralyzed, and anarchy followed by incremental accession to India. Ugly Face of Pretended Democracy: After the apprehension of Nawaz Sharif supporters and many so-called liberals are demanding for civilian supremacy over the army. Which is totally dubious and suspicious demand? Apart this, major question is: will it raise the standard of living of the masses over the Pakistan? Did Bhutto and Sharif play a loyal and successful role in the same regard? One knows all earlier civil prime Ministers as well as the army have been highly corrupt. Apparently civilian and democratic govt. also can make no difference there. All they (like Bhutto and Sharif) ruled sham democracy. They have never been concerned to abolish or even reduce poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, lack of health care etc. They failed as well as, army failed putting even single effort for upliftment, then why make such hue and cry? So, the demand by some liberals or secular for supremacy of civilian rule over the army is reluctant in Pakistan since both the politician and generals in Pakistan are corrupt, the poor people of Pakistan will remain poor. “The common people don’t matter in Pakistan, only the leaders do. And, the leaders are the one who create a situation which leads people there to misfortune.’’ Dr. Ajay Sahni I remember a line wrote by Urdu poet Jaun Elia about creation of Pakistan ‘’Ye sab Aligarh ke laundon ki shararat hai’’. Demanding of Pakistan was not an engineered plan by its founders. It was an enmity against Non-Muslim and hunger for a particular throne by some gullible; who create this fake and artificial country. Despite being secular their messiah disguised themselves rigid Muslim and paint the public sentiments with their own selfish interest. They ruled sham democracy. Partially Jaun Elia was right. Britishers bogus two nation theory also fuels this directionless ideology of Pakistani defenders. Hence enduring character of Pakistan is consistently downward on every variable can be defined whether economic, political, and security. Pakistan is a country without options. They have substandard almost nonexisting education system, there is not even half a dozen institution of higher education. There is obvious arbitrary, a weakening or collapsing education system across the country. Many govt. school exists on papers only. School buildings, mostly in rural areas, have been converted to drawing rooms for local landowners or cattle sheds while the children are forced to study under trees or out in open. Compounding the nations’s state of poor health, for example, is the toll taken by pneumonia killing approximately 92000 annually. According to UNICEF, despite significant improvements over the past two decades, Pakistan ranks towards the bottom among other countries when it comes to infant and neonatal mortality. The population of Pakistan is increasing at a rate of 3.2%. presently, Pakistan has to feed more the 200 million people and if these rate remains the same, then it will be almost double by the year, 2025 and hence, the consumption of the underground water will also add to the problem. Roads pf this country is of devastated condition. Roads are constructed and maintained just before the monsoon so that contractors have good alibi to blame the nature and escape accountability as they use very substandard material for this job. (municipal corporation, Krishan kumar). Every one’s character is painted with dark colors of corruption over there. Pakistan is on the course of suicide. It is also on the of bankruptcy. Its this situation is due to a failure of governance, not of the nationhood and also absence of civil military. Inference: Since we focus on contingent factors things will change on wishful thinking and hopes than we fall into gravious error and hence there is no consistency, there is yo yo situation, there is a swing one end to the other, dialogue, no dialogue since we have been focusing on civic military relations one has to look at the structural basis of Pakistan too while not ignoring the contingent factors also. We fluctuate between more cooperation and less cooperation, between less talk and more terror what actually follows illusion. India should not overlook the fundamentalism. We should approach the whole issue of Pakistan, we must be enduring the strength and weaknesses of Pakistan. Discover how we underestimate those strength and also those weaknesses to secure our aims Pakistan. Pendulum strategy it should be end dialogue means, full structural dialogue not whistling. We should not talk we have done this many time in past. We should not make same mistakes repeatedly. We should take strategic decision with strong will. Modi and Sharif final gesture that two PM are meeting. Army takes it as two kings are meeting it has nothing with Pakistan. So, we look contingent factors? Why we don’t look above the mentioned structural basis factors. It’s quite clear Pakistan is an ideological state rather functional. Despite all we think like ‘it might change one day’. ‘let’s try again, we are seen some changes – it’s a foolish thing by Indian Govt.’ Once the election over then we can decide how much pressure we can put and leave it isolated. Try to isolated and mount as much as pressure as we can, but it should remember that how much pressure we should put on Pakistan, we have to look what the international community do with it?

Publish in Daily Samachar Post Newspaper

4 views0 comments