(a) What arguments does Bodin present to contend that sovereignty must be absolute, perpetual and undivided? Is Bodin's conception of sovereignty compatible with the social and political ideals of equality, justice and liberty? Critically discuss. (2

Question

(a) What arguments does Bodin present to contend that sovereignty must be absolute, perpetual and undivided? Is Bodin's conception of sovereignty compatible with the social and political ideals of equality, justice and liberty? Critically discuss. (20 marks)

(b) Critically evaluate Gandhi's views on eradication of caste discrimination. (15 marks)

(c) Explain the difference between the notion of equity and equality with reference to Marxian philosophy. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

Bodin’s argument in the Six Books of the Commonwealth is that the commonwealth needs one supreme power to command without appeal, because divided sovereignty produces conflicting commands and civil disorder. Sovereignty is absolute because it is not subject to a higher human law or counter-power; perpetual because it cannot be time-limited without making the state temporary; undivided because sharing it among king, estates and parliaments creates mixed government that is in fact a struggle for sovereignty; and inalienable because a sovereign who can surrender or share supreme power ceases to be sovereign. Bodin distinguishes sovereignty from government: ministers and parliaments may administer, but the final right to make and unmake laws belongs to the sovereign. This gives order, but it is hard to reconcile with modern liberty. If sovereignty is absolute, liberty can only be negative non-interference or obedience to law, not republican self-government; Hobbesian security may be bought at the cost of political freedom. It also sits uneasily with equality, since Bodin accepts hierarchical corporate society and paternal authority. Yet order can be a precondition for justice, and in Indian constitutional debates the idea of a single sovereign centre is moderated by federalism, fundamental rights and the basic structure doctrine, which deny that any organ can claim absolute, undivided power.

Gandhi’s anti-caste programme combined moral reform with constructive work. He distinguished varna, which he treated as a flexible occupational division, from caste, which he condemned as birth-based exclusion and untouchability. He supported inter-dining and inter-marriage, promoted khadi and village industries, and used satyagraha against social exclusion, as in the Vaikom Satyagraha, which sought access to roads around a temple, and the Guruvayur movement, which pressed temple entry. His aim was to transform hearts and habits, not merely pass laws. Ambedkar, however, argued that caste was a structural system of hierarchy, not merely a moral failing, and that Gandhi’s romanticisation of the village, paternalism and reliance on persuasion were inadequate. Ambedkar publicly burned the Manusmriti and insisted on rejecting scriptural authority, while demanding constitutional rights and political representation. The 1932 Poona Pact, in which Gandhi’s fast led to a compromise on reserved seats, showed the limits of moral suasion; Gandhi continued to oppose untouchability but retained an idealised varnashrama, making his position more reformist than revolutionary.

Marx sharpens the distinction between equality and equity by criticising bourgeois equality as formal legal equality that preserves substantive inequality. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, he argues that rights in the first phase of communist society remain “bourgeois” because they treat unequal workers as equal, giving each the same measure of labour and ignoring differences in need. Equity, for Marx, is not equal shares but distribution according to need, and ultimately “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” Equality of opportunity, and even formal equality of condition, can mask unequal starting points; equity requires correcting material and social disadvantage. In India, reservation policy can be read as an equity measure, seeking substantive justice for historically excluded groups, whereas formal equality arguments stress non-discrimination and individual merit. Bodin, Gandhi and Marx thus conceptualise justice differently: Bodin through sovereign order, Gandhi through moral and social reform, and Marx through structural transformation of property and production. A critical verdict is that Bodin’s sovereignty can secure order but not liberty or equality; Gandhi’s anti-caste praxis is morally powerful but structurally limited; and Marx’s equity is the most radical, though it demands transformation beyond legal rights.

(a) What arguments does Bodin present to contend that sovereignty must be absolute, perpetual and undivided? Is Bodin's…

Model answer

What "Critically discuss" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from Philosophy 2022 Paper II