(a) Discuss anarchism as a political ideology. Is it possible to dispense with political authority completely? Give reasons for…

(a) Anarchism and the dispensability of political authority

Anarchism (Greek an-archos, without a ruler) holds that the state is coercive, hierarchical and unnecessary, and that a society of free, voluntary association is both possible and better. Its main features are rejection of the state, voluntary cooperation, decentralisation and direct action. Its strands include Godwin's rationalist anarchism (Political Justice, 1793), Proudhon's mutualism ("property is theft"), Bakunin's collectivist anarchism, Kropotkin's anarcho-communism based on mutual aid, Tolstoy's Christian anarchism, and Stirner's individualism. Gandhi too spoke of an ideal of "enlightened anarchy", in which each person is his own ruler without harming others.

For dispensing with authority: authority is not natural but a product of history, and coercion corrupts both rulers and ruled. Kropotkin argued that cooperation, not competition, is the main factor in human and animal life, pointing to medieval communes and voluntary associations. Short-lived experiments such as the Spanish anarchist collectives of 1936 show functioning self-management.

Against: without any authority, disputes, public goods and defence lack reliable arbiters, and Hobbes's fear of conflict cannot be dismissed. Informal hierarchies reappear where formal ones are removed (Freeman's "tyranny of structurelessness"). Large, complex societies need coordination, and the protection of minorities needs enforceable rules.

Conclusion: complete abolition of authority looks unrealistic in large modern societies, but anarchism's critique of arbitrary power is valuable. A realistic position is to limit and decentralise authority, making it accountable and consent-based, and to treat anarchism as a regulative ideal.

(b) Gandhian socialism and its relevance

Gandhi's socialism differs sharply from Marxian socialism in method and spirit. Its distinctive features are as follows.

Sarvodaya: the welfare of all, with the last person first (antyodaya).

Non-violence and moral means: class harmony through change of heart, and no class war.

Trusteeship: owners of wealth hold it as trustees for society, not abolished by force.

Bread labour (from Ruskin and Tolstoy): everyone should do some physical work.

Decentralisation: self-reliant village republics (grāma-swarāj), with swadeshi and khadi, and small-scale industry. Gandhi distrusted the state as "violence in a concentrated form".

Relevance: it speaks to growing inequality, ecological limits and local self-government. Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013 (CSR) echoes trusteeship; the 73rd and 74th Amendments reflect decentralisation; and MGNREGA (now succeeded by the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025) resembles bread labour with village employment. Gandhi's stress on sufficiency anticipates sustainability debates.

Limits: critics call trusteeship voluntary and utopian, and note that it ignores structural conflict (Ambedkar was sceptical of village republics as caste-bound). Rapid industrial growth needs larger scale than khadi economics allows.

(c) Kautilya on sovereignty and its use in democracy

In the Arthaśāstra the state is a seven-limbed organism (saptāṅga): svāmī (the king), amātya (ministers), janapada (territory and people), durga (fort), kośa (treasury), daṇḍa (army, coercive power) and mitra (ally). Sovereignty rests in the king as head of this body, who holds daṇḍa as the means of order (daṇḍa-nīti) and rules both internally and in relation to other states (the maṇḍala theory, with the conqueror, vijigīṣu, at the centre).

It is limited sovereignty: the king is bound by dharma, advised by ministers, and has a duty of welfare: "In the happiness of his subjects lies the king's happiness" (1.19.34). It is not sovereignty by popular consent.

Applicability: the personal monarchical form does not fit democracy, where sovereignty rests with the people and a constitution. But several ideas carry over. The state is treated as an interdependent organism, authority is tied to public welfare (yogakṣema), power is answerable to law, and the limbs (treasury, defence, allies) have modern analogues. So Kautilya's concept is applicable in principle but not in its form.