(a) Examine the liberal theory of State in contemporary politics. (20 marks) (b) Human Rights are complex and contested social…

(a) Liberal theory of the State in contemporary politics

The liberal theory of the state has evolved from classical night-watchman formulations to contemporary welfare and regulatory models. Classical liberalism and modern libertarianism, exemplified by Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974), emphasise negative liberty and the minimal state, arguing that redistributive taxation violates individual self-ownership. Conversely, egalitarian liberalism, advanced by John Rawls, justifies a redistributive welfare state through the principles of justice as fairness - equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle - while the "new liberals" such as T.H. Green had earlier argued for positive liberty. Critics remain: Marxists see the liberal state as protecting property, C.B. Macpherson (The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, 1977) exposed its market assumptions, and feminists question its public-private divide.

In contemporary politics, the liberal state faces dual transformations. Neoliberal globalisation has transformed the state from a direct provider into a regulatory apparatus managing market efficiencies. Simultaneously, post-9/11 counter-terrorism imperatives and digital surveillance have reinforced the coercive security state, often encroaching upon foundational civil liberties. In the Indian context, the state embodies this contemporary synthesis: it functions as a liberal constitutional democracy safeguarding procedural fundamental rights under Part III, while pursuing egalitarian positive liberty through the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV.

(b) Human rights as a contested social practice

Human rights are not static legal entitlements but dynamic, contested practices mediating the relationship between individuals, society, and the state. A core theoretical contestation persists between universalism and cultural relativism, as seen in the Asian Values debate and the Bangkok Declaration (1993), which prioritises communitarian harmony and socio-economic progress over Western individual civil liberties.

Furthermore, hierarchical tensions exist across the three "generations" of rights identified by Karel Vasak (1977): first-generation civil and political liberties often conflict with second-generation socio-economic entitlements and third-generation collective rights. In this matrix, the individual acts as the rights-bearer, society serves as the mediating normative space, and the sovereign state acts as the principal duty-bearer and potential violator. In India, this triadic dynamic is continuously negotiated by the judiciary, which has expanded the right to life under Article 21 to encompass socio-economic claims such as livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985) as well as civil claims such as privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017).

(c) Individualism in Hobbes’ absolutism

Although Thomas Hobbes is the foremost theorist of absolute sovereignty, his political philosophy is grounded in methodological individualism. Hobbes constructs his political architecture from the atomistic individual in the state of nature, driven by appetites, aversions, and a perpetual desire for power. The social contract is not a divine decree but a rational, self-interested calculation by discrete individuals to escape the violent condition of war.

The resulting Leviathan is an artificial person constructed entirely out of individual wills. The apparent paradox of an absolute sovereign created by free individuals is resolved through instrumental rationality: absolute power is justified solely as the most effective mechanism to secure individual self-preservation. If the sovereign fails to protect the subject's life, the obligation of obedience ceases, demonstrating that the individual's right to self-preservation remains primary. C.B. Macpherson's The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (1962) read Hobbes as the first theorist of market society, whose individuals are proprietors of their own capacities competing for power. Unlike John Locke, who posits limited government through a fiduciary trust to protect natural property rights, Hobbes makes individual self-interest the foundational premise that necessitates absolute political authority.