© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
— Manindra Nath Thakur
(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Manindra Nath Thakur, an expert on political theory, explores Indian political thought in broad strokes.)
As India navigates the complexities of governance models, constitutional debates and policy-making, revisiting the historical evolution of Indian political thought becomes crucial. Across centuries, Indian political thought has drawn on diverse religious traditions, grappled with multiple forms of governance, and responded to various social and political crises.
Although each historical phase contributed distinct concepts — such as the centrality of ethics or the role of community — these ideas form a shared heritage that continues to influence collective political consciousness in India.
But how does Indian political thought differ from its Western counterpart? How do Indian thinkers reconcile the pursuit of political power with the need for moral integrity? Let’s explore the unique trajectory of India’s political philosophy and its relevance in the modern world.
A defining hallmark of Indian political thought is its insistence on the ethical dimension of both ends and means. Western political philosophy often accepts the notion that “the end justifies the means”, whereas Indian thinkers stress that the path to a political goal must be as morally sound as the objective itself. They do not dismiss the reality of power struggles and statecraft, but they maintain that human beings possess moral agency and can make choices rooted in ethical considerations.
Take Kautilya, author of the Arthashastra, who is frequently compared with Machiavelli for his pragmatic approach to governance. While he indeed advises rulers to employ various strategies — some seemingly ruthless — he also insists on ethical ends. Kautilya’s king must consult wise ministers (Amatyas) and ensure that state policies align with moral duties.
Another example is the Yog Vashisht, a Sanskrit text widely read during the Mughal era. In it, Guru Vashisht counsels the hesitant Prince Rama on his obligation to rule, framing political duty as inseparable from ethical conduct. This perspective parallels Mahatma Gandhi’s insistence that pure ends require pure means, underscoring the enduring link between morality and politics in Indian thought.
A second significant feature of Indian political thought is its exploration of the desire to shape human behaviour and politics. The Buddha was among the earliest thinkers to identify desire as the source of suffering and argued that social justice requires regulating or transcending it. He taught that by cultivating awareness — becoming conscious of one’s consciousness — individuals could diminish the craving for power and foster a more harmonious society.
Kautilya, too, recognised the centrality of desire. In the Arthashastra, he treats desire as a key principle of human motivation, suggesting that a strong state should fulfil legitimate desires and suppress illegitimate ones. This approach positions the government as an instrument that can channel desire productively while minimising harm. Mahatma Gandhi later echoed this sentiment, famously remarking that “nature has enough for need but not for greed”, signifying the imperative to curb excessive desire.
In contrast, Western economists like Adam Smith considered desire — often in the form of self-interest — beneficial and foundational for capitalism. Smith’s premise, which some interpret as “greed is good”, focuses on how self-interest can spur production and innovation. Indian thinkers, however, tend to foreground the ethical and spiritual implications of unrestrained desire, warning of the social and personal suffering it can engender if left unchecked.
A third key characteristic of Indian political thought is its holistic understanding of human nature; rather than viewing individuals as motivated primarily by fear or self-interest — as in the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes or John Locke — Indian traditions describe human beings as a dynamic mix of positive and negative impulses. Two important conceptual categories are the Purusharthas and the Vikaras.
The four Purusharthas — Arth (material well-being or humans’ relation with nature), Kama (desire originating in mind and body), Dharma (knowledge of natural and social laws), and Moksha (the attainment of higher consciousness) — are seen as positive or constructive goals that guide a balanced life.
In contrast, the six Vikaras — Kama (illegitimate desire), Krodh (anger), Mada (pride), Moha (attachment), Lobha (greed), and Irshya (jealousy) — represent the more destructive aspects of human personality. Each person, at any given moment, is a unique equilibrium of these impulses, shaping their behaviour and worldview.
Many scholars regard this framework as one of India’s significant contributions to global philosophy, given how it captures the multiplicity of human motives. By contrast, in European contractualist thought, theorists often isolate a single dimension — such as self-preservation (Hobbes) or self-interest (Locke) — as the core driver of political life. Indian political thinkers posit that a more nuanced view of human nature is necessary for designing political and social institutions.
A fourth distinguishing feature is the recognition that society holds a degree of autonomy from the political realm. Though India has seen powerful empires and centralised states, many thinkers have emphasised that community organisations often uphold customs and norms rather than the state alone. Political authority typically intervenes only under serious conflict or injustice in the social sphere.
Even Kautilya, while advocating a robust state, recommends that customary law should sometimes override state law if it better reflects communal traditions. This acceptance of social autonomy helps explain contemporary challenges in India, such as the difficulty of introducing a uniform civil code. Deeply rooted community norms continue to hold sway, resisting one-size-fits-all legal frameworks.
This societal autonomy is also evident in historical reform initiatives. Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s campaign against Sati illustrates how social debate can precede and facilitate legislative intervention. Roy used a multifaceted strategy to challenge Sati’s legitimacy: he reinterpreted religious texts, questioned the complicity of men in widows’ suffering, and pointed to the property regime that rendered widows vulnerable.
By rallying social consensus first, Roy paved the way for the colonial government to outlaw Sati without provoking the widespread backlash that might have occurred if the ban were imposed unilaterally.
A similar tension exists in debates over caste, particularly untouchability. Mahatma Gandhi believed that, since social norms maintain caste, genuine eradication requires transforming communal attitudes. On the other hand, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised the state’s power to legislate against discriminatory practices.
Over time, both converged on the view that legal reforms and social awakening must go hand in hand. Ambedkar’s eventual decision to convert to Buddhism signified his recognition that spiritual and ethical transformations are crucial for dismantling oppressive social structures.
In the decades since independence, India’s electoral democracy has revealed new dynamics between community identities and politics. Early nation-builders hoped modern citizenship would override parochial ties, but caste and community have continued to shape electoral outcomes.
What was initially viewed as an obstacle to nation-building has gradually been accepted — some call it an “Indian variant” of democracy. This evolution further underscores the enduring autonomy of the social sphere from formal political institutions.
Finally, religion has always played a significant role in Indian political thought. Several of the world’s major religions originated in Asia, and some — like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism — are native to India. From ancient times, political treatises acknowledged religious leaders, rituals, and ethical codes while also developing criteria for secular governance.
Notable figures throughout history have attempted to reconcile diverse religious traditions. Emperor Ashoka promoted Buddhist values of tolerance, the Mughal emperor Akbar championed a syncretic vision of empire, and Dara Shikoh translated the Upanishads and authored the Majma-ul-Bahrain to highlight commonalities between Islamic and Hindu thought.
Modern intellectuals — such as Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, and B. R. Ambedkar — continued these reflections, arguing that adequately interpreted religion can serve a constructive social and ethical purpose.
For Indian thinkers, therefore, secularism has often meant respecting all religions equally — sarva dharma sambhav — rather than eliminating religion from the public sphere. Ambedkar, for instance, distinguished between a “religion of principles” and a “religion of rules”, contending that the latter fosters rigid hierarchies while the former can cultivate universal ethics. This distinctly Indian approach to secularism contrasts with specific Western models, emphasising a more pronounced separation between religion and state.
To sum up, Indian political thought is marked by a distinctive “Indianness” that merges ethical realism with a nuanced view of human nature, respects the autonomy of social institutions, and acknowledges the positive role religion can play in public life. These characteristics set it apart from many Western traditions.
To what extent does the emphasis on social justice and equality in Indian political thought reflect a broader moral imperative in Indian politics, and how can this imperative be strengthened in the face of modern political realities?
What role have historical figures like Kautilya and Mahatma Gandhi played in shaping the moral dimensions of Indian political philosophy, and how do their ideas continue to influence contemporary political ethics?
How does the Indian approach to secularism differ from Western models, and what are the consequences of this approach for political discourse?
What factors have contributed to the acceptance of community identities as a natural part of India’s democratic process, often referred to as the “Indian variant” of democracy?
How did Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s approach to social reform demonstrate the power of societal debate in shaping legislative change?
(Manindra Nath Thakur is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
