0. 1. Define state and discuss its essential elements.
Ans. What is State ?
It is very essential for a student of Political Science to make detailed study of state, because the basic idea of Political Science is state. From this point of view, detailed discussion is made on the meaning, nature and dimension of the word ‘state’. It has a scientific meaning in Political Science. Generally common people use the term state in the sense of government, society, association or nation according to their convenience. It is usually used in the sense of government. When we say that individual freedom is in danger because of the state of centralisation of political power by the state, then we mean the government and not the state. The French Emperor Louis XIV said, “I am state.” He meant that he was a part of the state and that is, government. In fact, government is an important element of the state to be regarded as the main spring in fulfilling the objectives of the state. A state can be recognised by its government. We shall discuss the distinction between state and government later on. But it should be clear that state is permanent, but government is not: Government changes, but state remains unchanged. During world war there was government led by Churchill in England, and after the war Labour Party formed the government led by Ettlee. We use the term state to mean the countries like the U.S.A., U.S.S.R., England, Japan and India – and also the constituent units of the federal state. We call New York, California in the U.S.A. and U.P., Punjab etc, in India as state. But it is not scientific use of the term.”
In ancient Greece the term ‘Polis’ was used to mean city-state. In those days, the form the Greek city-states was different form the form of states as they exist to-day. So we can not compare the modern states with those ancient Greek city-states by any means. Finer rightly said that modern states do not have the features of anicient Greek of Roman states.
Today state has brought peace and order in our social life. This has assured security in our personal life and established an environmental helping co-operation in social life. This has made possible the growth of culture and civilization. .
Thus state is similar to human nature. It is very essential for man. It is permanent. State is natural because it is the result of our natural instinct. Plato said that no man is complete by himself. He has to accept social bond for meeting his mental and physical needs. First family is formed and many families combined together to form a village. From village appeared the city. State is the best organisation appearing in this order. It is in keeping with the human nature, state is very essential because various needs of man are met only through the co-operation of the state. Today we can not imagine of the development of the personality of an individual without the state. In fact without state society would be full of disorder and disorganised. Aristotle said, “The state comes into existence originating in the bare needs of the life and continuing in existence for the sake of good life.” Definition of State
Political scientists have defined state according to their view-points. The eminent German scholar Schulze said that state has been explained in so many ways that is not possible to count them all. But all these definitions have some common features. We should discuss about the ancient and modern views :
Ancient Scholars : Aristotle, the father of Political Science, imagined of various associations of man before the origin of state. He used to live in family. Families made clans and clans formed villages. Man cannot be happy or develop his personality by remaining alone. Good equalities develop in individuals only through social life. It is due to this social nature of man that Aristotle said “Man is a social animal.”. But the necessity of controlling various associations was felt. This was performed by the state that was the highest association. State includes clans and villages. On the basis of this idea Aristotle defined state “The state is a union of families and villages having for its end perfect and self-sufficient life.” .
According to Cicero, the philosopher during the Roman Empire man is organised in on association like state. He shares equally the
benefits and rights that he gets from the state. He does not get it Elsewhere, because no other association can influence such a wide area. In fact.individual gets many rights with the origin of state. These benefits he did not earlier. Thus he defines state–“The state is a numerous visto united by a common sense of right and mutual participation in advantages.”
In the middle age Roman political thought had much influence. During this period political scientists were greatly influenced by Cicero. Grotlos regarded state as an independent and complete association of men related to the common feeling or rights and benefits derived out of mutual co-operation of individuals.
On the basis of the above idea ancient scholars point-out two features of the state
(1) State is the highest of all associations.
(2) All men can get the benefits unitedly which are available only in state.
Modern Viewpoints. Modern thinkers reject the medieval idea of state. Now it is occupied by all that state has four elements : (1) Population, (2) Territory, (3) Government, (4) Sovereignty. Most of the scholars mention these four elements, but some define state without mentioning all the four Burgess says, “The state is a particular portion viewed as an organised unit.” According to Bluntschli “The political is the politically organised people of definite territory.” According to Wilson “The state is a people organised for law within a definite territory.” While defining the state these scholars forget that people organised politically in a fixed territory is not a state as long as they are not fully independent from external control, that is, fully sovereign. We cannot say that India was a state before 1947. The people were politically organised with a fixed territory, but there was no sovereignty.
Let us discuss about some definitions mentioning all the four elements. – Holland, the English scholar, gave stress on two points. First,
state is a group of people living permanently in a fixed territory. Secondly the will of a few members of the group is to be obeyed compulsorily by other members of the group. In the words of Holland : “The state is a numerous assemblage of human beings generally, occupying a certain territory, among whom the will of the majority or of an ascertainable class of persons is by the strength of such a majority or class, made to prevail, against any of there numbers who oppose it.”
Phillimore gives a detailed definition of state : “A state is a people
permanently occupying a fixed territory, bound together by common laws,habits and customs into one body police, exercising through the medium of an organised government independent sovereignty, and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace, and of entering into all international relations with the communities of the globe.” This definition elucidates mainly the nature of the nation state. This definition mentions the for essential elements four constituting a state. In addition, it points out that residents of the state should be organised by common law, customs and practices etc. In fact people living in a territory for a long time develop certain common customs, convention, practices and traditions. As a result, the human society within that territory assumes the form of a state. It is observed that a nation state is the best form of state because in such a state a mutual good feeling and a sense of co-operation prevails in the environment. But Phillimore’s definition does not keep into consideration the concept of a multi-nation state. But at present there exist many states with more than one nation.
Laski in his precise and simple definition of state mentions all the four elements of state. He said – “The state is a territorial society divided into government and subjects claiming within its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other institutions.”
The best definition of state has been given by Gamer because this definition includes almost all the modern states, and at the same time considers all the states that existed in the medieval period. It considers states like India, China and Russia with vast territory and huge population and at the same time small states like Belgium and Luxembourg with small territory and population. Considering this point Gamer has said that the territory of the state may be vast or small. In his definition he stresses on another point, and that is the people residing in a certain territory should be fully free from all external control. He maintains that sovereignty is an essential feature to make a state. India become voluntarily a member of the Commonwealth after independence.
It was a kind of external control, but yet India was a state. Medieval kings and chiefs were sovereign in their territory, but showed their loyalty to another dominant power. But Garner desines state : “The state, as concept of political science and public law, is a community of persons more of less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent or nearly so of external control and possessing an organised government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.”
Essential Attributes or Elements of State
From the above definition it becomes clear that state possess four Essential elements. For understanding the nature of state we should discuss four elements in detail — These arc (1) Population, (2) Territory, (3) Government, (9) Sovereignty. Save 1. Population
State is a human association, so population is an essential element. We should know the following points with regard to the state.
1.State cannot exist without population : State cannot exist in an area without population Leacock said : “It goes without saying that an uninhabited portion of the carth, taken in itself, can not form a state.” But one or two persons or families do not make a state. Gilchrist says that clan does not make a state. State is a human association more important that many other social associations. So state owes its origin to the existence of many clans and association. This population, may be small or big, forms a state.
(2) views of ancient scholars with regard to population : In Greek city-states like Athens and Sparta population was small. Citizens used to participate directly in government because it was the age of direct democracy. Naturally philosophers of this age pleaded for small state. Plato formed the optimum population numbering 5040 in his book ‘Laws.’ This was desirable in an ideal state. Aristotle followed his precepatan Plato and favoured small population. But he did not mention of a fixed number of population. According to him there should not be small population or big population. Aristotle favoured a number of population that could be self-reliant and lead a happy life. Rousseau was also a philosopher defending direct democracy. According to him an ideal state should have a population numbering about 10,000. In such a state citizens will have full freedom.
(3) Defence of large population in modern time : As long as the means of transport and communication was not developed, and representative government and election procedure did not come into existence, the small states and the direct democracy introduced there were given importance. But it was felt that a state having large population is strong. It was endeavoured to form such state. Care was taken to increase population. Hitler and Mussolini gave state honour to mothers with large number of children. In Russia much care is taken to increase population. In the modern machine age, no less stress is given on man-power increase. Man power is required for increasing the military strength of a state. For the optimum utilisation of natural resources man power is very essential. It is known to all that small states like Belgium and Luxemburg with small population are no match large state like Russia, China and America with huge population. So now a state with large population is favoured.
(4) Appearance of Federal State : During middle age small states were combined to make an empire. But these empires can not be compared with federal states. The idea of defence and self reliance and the establishment of vast and strong state was the basis of the formation of federal state inhabit by a large population. America and Russia are such federal states.
(5) The limit of Population cannot be fixed: The question is whether only a large state with large population can be called a state in the modern sense of the term ? But this is not so. Even today there are small states like Monaco and Luxemburg with a population numbering a few thousand. On the other hand, there are lom like India and China. So a definite limit with regard to the population in a state can not be fixed. But one point is very important. There must be a proportion between population and territory. The population should be such that the people can make their living and lead a happy life. Secondly, the people must be able to defined themselves from foreign aggression. Gamer said, “It would be futile to attempt to lay down any precíse rules as to the maximum or minimum number of inhabitants of which a state should be composed …… The population must be sufficient in number to maintain a state organisation, and that it ought not to be greater than territorial area and resources of the state are capable of in supporting .”
(6) Growing trend towards nation-states : The importance of nation-state was always felt. But in modern age there is a growing tendency of states becoming nation state. In a state there should be people belonging to a single nationality with common customs and . manners, living, language, religion, interest and common enemy and friend. A state with such a population grows smoothly. There are many
states with many nationalities. But a nation-state is preferable. In the · last century Mill pleaded in favour of nation state.
This is the second essential element of the state, People should have sufficient and fixed territory to live. These people can develop social life based on love and affection. Human society is keen to lead a happy life and thus makes possible the best self-government. This is
possible when the people live permanently in a certain territory. So the necessity of territory for making a state was realised. There are some scholars like Cicero who did not recognise the importance of territory in the making of a state. But now it is accepted by all that territory is essential for the making of a state. The following points in connection with territory require to be understand :
(1) There is no fixed rule with regard to the area of the territory : There is no fixed limit with regard to the population. Similarly, there is no fixed limit with regard to the area of the territory. In ancient time small states were preferred Plato and Aristotle pleaded for such small states. Rousseau was influenced by Plato and favoured small state. But they could not give any definite rules with regard to this. In modern times there are big states and also small states. The total areas of the U.S.S.R. is one sixth of the total area of the world whereas the are of San Marino is only 38 sq. miles. Thus there are small and big states, and area is not a bar in the making of a state.
The area of the state should be such that people residing there can have sufficie:it land to live happily. There should be a proportion between land and the population.
(2) There is a tendency towards bigger size of the state : There is an endeavour to build a state with big size. Hitler said that big size of the state is very helpful during war. Hitler could not defeat Russia because of big size. In a large state, army can retreat and manoeuver. Ordinance factories can be protected well in secret places. People in a large state can build a large army and help the army in various ways.
Large population can help war efforts and during peace time it can help in reconstruction and progress. This is why smal: states are uniting themselves to form federation, and merging their separate entity to form a big and strong state. America, India, China and Russia etc. are examples.
(3) Territory does not imply mere, faitd : Territory means minerals, mountains, rivers, lakes and forests in the territory. This includes the weather and the space within the region. Generally land beyond the ” three miles of the coast of the territory is also included. The state has claim over the space. Other states can use these areas only according to international law.
State is a politically organised society but for the expression of Stálf government is very essential. This is the third element. The nature of the state is perverted along with the government. Detailed discussion on government will be made later on. But the following points should be kept in mind :
(1) The government is the medium of expression of the state : State is not concrete, but government has concrete existence. We can feel the existence of the state, but we can see the government functioning, The desires and objectives of the state are fulfilled by the government. State cannot meet its needs by itself. For this purpose, government is formed and the government leads the state.
(2) There might be different forms of government : There might be different forms of government-unitary, federal, parliamentary, presidential, democratic and dictatorship. There should be certain type of government for the making of a state.
(3) There might be different fields of the functions of the government : The functions of the state are determined according to the aims and objectives of the state. On the one side it is favoured that government should control the economic, social, religious and other aspects of citizen’s life. On the other hand, it is argued that the state should have power over desence, internal law and order etc. In capitalist countries emphasis is given on individual freedom, whereas in socialist countries the government is given full control over the economic affairs of the individual. Thus there might be differences in the spheres of activities of the government, but it makes no difference in the formation of the state.
(4) Absence of government means anarchy : In the absence of government it would be impossible to achieve the objectives of the states. Not only that Anarchy will begin. The strong will oppress the weak. Gamer said : “Government is the agency or machinery through which common policies are determined and by which common affairs are regulated and common interests promoted. Without Government the population would be an incoherent unorganised, anarchic mass with no means of collective action.”
The essential needs of government has been expressed by Bluntschli, “If there are none who possess authority and none who obey, there is no state but anarchy.”
Only on the basis of population, territory and government, state cannot be formed. The fourth attributes, that is, sovereignty is very essential for the state. No politically organised group in a certain territory can be called a state, unless it is free to solve or frame a policy on its
internal or external problems. The following points on sovereignty should be kept in mind :
(1) State becomes the highest association due to sovereignty : State is a human association. But state has the supreme power by means of which it can enforce its laws on the people. Not only that, it controls all other human associations within the state. No other association possesses this supreme power. These associations are merely voluntary associations. But state is a compulsory association. Laski said, “It is by the possession of sovereignty that the state is distinguished from all other forms of human associations.”
(2) Sovereignty gives freedom to the state in intemal affairs : Sovereignty is the soul of the state. This Sovereignty gives full power to the state to solve its internal problems and to maintain peace and order. State can enforce law on its citizens and controls other associations because it has legal power to have supreme, unrestrained and unlimited control over every individual or association within the state. This highest power of the state cannot be transferred to any other association, nor can be divided. There cannot be another state within one state because a state cannot be challenged.
(3) Sovereignty gives external freedom : A state without sovereignty, or highest authority is a dependent state controlled by a foreign power. Such a state becomes a part of the dominating state, and loses its separate entity. Prior to 1947 Great Britain had control over India. So India was not a state inspite of possessing territory, population and government. It was a part of the British empire. When a country becomes full sovereign, and is not under the control of any foreign power, determines its own foreign policy without interference from any foreign power and establishes its external relation according to its own plan, then it is sovereign externally, and such a country can be called a state.
According to Garner even if there exists slight control limiting the external sovereignty, them, too, there is no bar in calling it a state. It does not hinder. International law limits the sovereignty of the nation in many ways. Even if there are bindings due to the membership of organisation like. “British Commonwealth” as it happened in the case of Canada or Australia, these states can be regarded as full state because these states are completely free in determining or carrying out their external policy.
Sometimes, out of mistake it is thought that the constituent units of federal state are also states. These units derive power and rights from the constitution, but they lack sovereignty. The Union Government
18 has the power to determine foreign policy and California in the U.S.A. and Punjab and Bengal in India appear to be full slates but they cannot be ranked as state, because they lack sovereignty..
Some states the United Nations is considered as a state because it is a federation on of all the states of the world and all the members states have promised to obcy its order. But it is wrong to consider the United Nations as a state because it is an organisation consisting of sovereign states which can give up membership according to their will. They follow the order of the United Nations so long as it does not harm their interest. In the absence of sovereignty, the United Nations cannot be regarded as a world state.
Thus, state is an association consisting of the four attributes. We can say that state is a politically organised association of people settled in a certain territory fully independent in internal and external affairs.
Q. 2. Differentiate between State and Society and Association.
Ans. State and Society. We must also clearly distinguish between the State and society, because ‘to identify tie social with the political is to be guilty of the grossest of all confusions, which completely bars any understanding of either society or State.’ To equate the State with society is to justify State interference in all aspects of human life, thereby significantly affecting individual liberty. Aristotle’s State was an omnicompetent State as he saw no difference between the State and society. A dictator, too, will pay scant attention to this distinction. There is no sphere of life which a dictator’s State will not cover. For Hitler and Mussolini there was nothing above the State, nothing beyond it, nothing besides it.
Society is the product of man’s instinctive desire for association which finds expression in the aggregation of people having common interests and united together by what may be called “consciousness of the kind.” The people who live together think alike, associate with one another, and make common efforts for a common purpose or plan. They establish, what Sociologist call, “functional institutions for the realisation of that common purposes which associated men together. It ‘may be a club, a debating society, a religious -‘economic or political association. All combine.’ together make the social structure and aim to serve the various purposes for which the society came into existence. “Social relations are thread of life” and social institutions ‘from the loom on which the thread are woven into a cloth or garment.” Society stands for the whole scheme of life an it is interwoven by different
association which serve different purposes to complete the whole purpose of life. Political purpose is one of those purpose and it is performed by the State. The State is therefore, one of these “functional” institutions, the creation of man’s will and reason. It is organised in a special way to secure certain results. It emerges and exists within society, but “’is not”, as maclver says, “even the form of society.” The geographical areas of the State and society may be the same and their membership may also be identical, but they are distinct in origins, aims and functions. The State exists for one single purpose and its functions are relative to that purpose. Society exists for a number of purposes, “some great and some small, but all in their aggregate deep as well as broad.” The organisation of the State “is not all social organisation,” as Maclver puts it, “the ends for which the State stands are not all the ends which humanity seeks, and quite obviously the ways in which the State pursues its object are only some of the ways in which within society, men strive for the objects of their desire.”
Since society is natural and instinctive and the State is the creation of will and reason, society is prior to the State and it embraces all communities organised and unorganised. Organisation is not the essential characteristic of society. But the State must necessarily be organised. The Pathans of the Tribal Area, on the North-West Frontier of Pakistan, do not form a State, though every tribe is a distinct social unit. Similarly, certain groups of Eskimos have no recognisable political organisation.
The State is definitely a territorial organisation. Society recognises no territorial limitations. Its branches may be spread in other parts of the universe too. Then, society embraces the whole life of man and all those social ties, like the family, the caste, the church the club etc. which bind men together. The State is concerned only with those social relationship that express themselves though government. It has no jurisdiction over others. Maclver has aptly expressed this difference. He says that “there are social forms, like the family or the church or the club. which owe neither their origin nor their inspiration to the State, and social forces, like custom or competition which the State may protect or modify, but certainly does not create; and social motives, like friendship or jealousy, which establish relationship too intimate and personal to be controlled by the great engine of the State.”
The State is sovereign and it lays down a system of imperatives. If one disobeys the imperatives of the State, which take the form of laws, one can be punished. But society does not posses coercive power. That is the monopoly of the State. Sociсty, no doubt, has its own rules
which regulate social behaviour, but they are not imperatives. To simply rules of conduct, which the members of society are desire observe. It has no authority to force obedience. Nor can it physically punish those who disobey its rules, society ensures the observance its rules by persuasion, and appeal to the good will of its members Barker rightly says, “the area of society is voluntary co – operation , energy is good will and its methods is elasticity, while the area of State is mechanical action its energy is force and its methods is rigidity.”
While the State is not identical with society, yet it provides the framework of the social order, According to Laski, the State is a w of regulating human conduct. “Any analysis of its character reveals : as a method of imposing principles of behaviour by which men min regulate their lives.” The conditions in which we are born, grown are educated, work enjoy our leisure own property marry have children and die, are all laid down by the State, and the government can compel us to comply with them. All births must be registered otherwise all kinds of complications can arise. Similarly, parents are obliged to notify the authorities if they suffer from certain infectious disease. Citizen must pay taxes to the State, whether they approve of the use to which the money is put or not. They must clothe themselves a nuisance to their neighbours, and they must respect the persons and property of other people. There is, in fact, hardly a single human activity which is not in some way regulated by the State. All conduct in society must conform to the way of life prescribed by the laws of the State, as the State makes and maintains its laws not for the sake of laws, but for what they do to individual lives. The State, thus represents the highest form of social organisation and it exists to regulate and cement social relations. It binds people together and enjoins upon them to observe certain uniform rules of behaviour, without which we cannot think of a well-ordered social life.
It may, however, again be emphasised that “the State is a structure not co-eval and co-extensive with society, but built within it as a determine order for the attainment of specific end.” The end of the State is to provide those conditions of togetherness without which the happiness of man cannot be secured. But the State can serve its purpose best when it performs it own functions efficiently and refrains from trespassius into others. If it does, them the State stands equated with society embracing the whole life of man. This will make the State on competence really means incompetence. It may mean even something more. The happiness of the individual may be sacrificed in the name of the glory and prosperity of the ultimately be at the mercy of the government, for “the State is”, as Laski says, “for the purpose of Practical administration, thc government.” The government may prescribe anything which it may like and as it likes. But this is neither the way of the State nor that of the government. The State is the creation mod agent of society and, therefore, its subordinate. Both society and the State strive to achieve the common objective the free development of man’s personality; his happiness. This is possible only when the distinction and collaboration between the two is property recognised. Following is the summary to clarify the points involved in the discussion.
1. Society is instinctive to man and is spontaneous in its growth and development. Maclver says, “wherever living being enter into, or maintain willed relations with one another there society exists.” The State is one of the associations contained within society, the creation of man’s will and reason to maintain and cement the various aspect of social life. Two results, then, follow:
(i) society is both prior to and wider than the State; and
(ü) society is a complex of all such associations as economic education al, religious political and cultural.
Society precedes the State just as it precedes the family the church the corporation, the political party. It unites all these as a tree unites its branches. The State is one of these associations, and it has become the most prominent of all because it controls and coordinates the various aspects of social life.
2. The purposes of society are many and diverse whereas the purpose of the State is only one; its political organization and its end is related to its purpose to which it must confine itself.. .
3. The State is definitely territorial society is not Loyalty to the State does not exhaust all the social obligations of man.”
4. The structure of society is elastic and it is based upon the voluntary cooperation of its members; it appeals and persuades. The State is compact, its actions are mechanical its methods are rigid and its power it force.
5. The State issues orders and their disobedience is accompanied by physical punishment. Society act upon its members through customs. conventions and moral rules. It exercise social pressures but not force.
6. In spite of these difference between society and the State, they are connected and inter- dependent . Social conduct must conform to
the way of life prescribed by the laws of the State. But the State must not trespass into the sphere not assigned to its jurisdiction.
State and Associations
State and Association. Society, as said before is not a mer aggregate of individuals, but a collection of groups composed of individuals. These groups are voluntarily formed by man for the satisfaction of his various and diversified needs, such as, social religious cultural economic educational, recreational and many others. All these groups express and develop the sociability of man. In the beginning mau’s social wants were few and the groups were limited in number But in the complex life of our times social wants have multiplied enormously and today society is a vertiable network of such associations, Barker says, “We see society less as a number of individuals such associations. Barkers says, “We see society less as a number of individuals leading a common life, we see it more as an association of individuals already united in various groups, each with its common file, in a further and higher group for a further and higher common purpose.”
An association is defined as a group of persons or members
who are associated and organised into a unity of will for a common end.” Colc aggregation of purposes by a course of co-operative action extending beyond a single act, and for this purpose agreeing together upon certain methods of procedure and laying down, in however rudimentary a form, rules common action.” An association, therefore, embraces a group of people having a common purpose or purposes for which they associated and organised themselves. A mere group of men do not form an association. Every association must have, in the first place, some specific purpose or purposes to fulfil. Secondly, individuals so associated should be duly organised. Without organisation it becomes just a collection of individuals or a crowd. A crowd has no method off doing thing and achieving its purpose as there is no common bond of cohesion between them. And there must be some man or body of men to see that the rules of the association are duly obeyed to realise its purpose. Every association necessarily has its constitution, a code of rules and a way of setting up its government; churches, political parties, and trade unions for example..
The State, too is a group of human beings. It comes into existence, like other groups, to satisfy huma-n needs through concerted action. While each group has its distinctive character and problems, yet all pursue their activities to secure a happy and good life. In spite of this close resemblance between the State and other associations, there are some fundamental differences which distinguish the State from any other association.
1. The State is a territorially integrated association and its territory
most distinctly demarcated. The jurisdiction of each State lapses havond its territorial limits. But voluntary association are not restricted in definite territory. Many of them are international in scope, spread all the world over, and include in their membership citizens of many States, as the Rotary Club the Lions Club, the Red Cross Society, and the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. The membership of each State is distinct. I am a citizen of India while John is a citizen of say the United States of America.
2. Membership of the State is compulsory. One must be a member of one State or another, there is no option for him. But membership of others associations, except the family, is voluntary, and optional. It is for each individual to decide whether he should be a member of one association of many association at the same time; it is his own option and choice. He is also free to withdraw from any association whenever the elects to do so it is his own decision.
3. The State is a permanent and enduring association unless it is conquered and annexed or its units disintegrate and secede as in the erstwhile Soviet Union. Governments may come or go, the sovereignty may shift from one centre to another the State continues. But many association have only a temporary existence. An association may cease to exist as soon as the purpose for which it came into existence had been realised. Some association disappear because of internal dissensions. Even violent internal commotions and changes do no affect the existence of the State they may simply lead to a change in the government.
4. Each association is promoted for a specific object or object and its activities are limited to the pursuit of those interests. In other words the sphere of activity of every voluntary association is well defined. The province of the charged with the care of general rather than particular interests. Maclver says that the State “is essentially an order-creating organisation. It exists to establish order, not of course, merely for the sake of order, but for the sake of all the potentialities of the life which require that basis of order.”
5. The State is sovereign and its possesses the power to enforce its decisions. Voluntary associations do not possess the legal power of coercion. If the members of an association disobey its rules and
regulations, they cannot be physically punished. It has no means to command and enforce obedience. It can only morally condemn the
wrong-does though it may be admitted that in some condemnation is worse than physical punishment.
6. The State possesses the power to control the activites of all voluntary associations. It can even ban the existence of an as if it is deemed to have acted or is likely to act so as to disturb public peace and security. As a matter of fact, no State would permit the formation, or continued existence within its territorial limits, of an association for criminal or immoral purposes, or one whose objects are avowedly hostile to the public policy of the State. Examples when associations have been declared unlawful or have been dissolved by the command of the State, are too numerous to quote. The Government of India is 1962 declared the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) unlawful association and banned its activities. The ban was lifed afterwards. Internal Emergency declared in June 1975 again banned It was banned on December 9, 1992 for the third time along with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP). The Bajrang Dal, and the Islamic Sewak Sanghy. Till March 31, 1993. “association and groups, including the four mentioned above, stood banned under the provisions of the unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Pakistan Government during General Ayub Khan’s military regime, prohibited the organisation of private military formations and then liquidated political parties. General Zia-ul-Haq repeated it in 1977 after his military coup and the ban on political parties continued till 1987.
7. Finally the State can create many associations and prescribe their functions. The universities in every country are established by the law of the State and their functions are clearly defined therein. Similarly, it may create corporations or other kinds of associations for certain specific purposes.
Q. 3. Define ‘State’ and differentiate between state and Nation.
Ans. Meaning of the State. The term “state”, which is the central subjects of our study, has a scientific meaning. We do not use it with the same vagueness and ambiguity as it is used by a man in the street. It is often, but erroneously used as a synonym for “nation”, “society “government”, etc. But all these terms have definite meaning of their own in Political Science and should be clearly distinguished one from the other. The term state is also very commonly used to express the collective action of the community, through the agency of government, as distinguished from individual action. For instance, we talk about “State management”, “State regulation”, “State aid” , etc.
we we actually use the word State for government. Similarly, when we talk
about the twenty-six unit of the indian Republic or the fifty state which make the United States of America, we do not give the word its scientific meaning. None of them is really a State. In Political Science the term State has a more specific and definite meaning which has little in common with most of its various ordinary meanings.
As used in Political Science, the term mean an assemblage of people occupying a definite territory under an organised government and subject to no outside control. One hundred and eighty five (185) manifestation of it are members of the United Nation Organisation. There are many more which are not members of the Organisation. All of them share common characteristics. They are groups of people living on, and exercising control over a definite territory. They are divided into government and subjects; the rulers and ihe ruled. Some sort of system or order is represent and subject the rulers and the ruled. Some sort of system or order is represented by each. Rules of law are established and in some measure maintained, and compulsion is exercised, and the right to it is recognized both by the members of the group and by the outside world.
There can be no community without the people to form one, and non common life without some definite piece of territory to live in. When people live a collective life, they fulfil the meaning of Aristotle’s famous phrase. “Man is a social animal”, and when they live a settled life on a definite territory to realize the purpose of collective. living, they fulfil the meaning of Aristotle’s second famous phrase: “Man is a political animal.” But man is not so good as we want to believe that he is. There are all kind of men and even good men exhibit selfish behaviour because they live in society. Pride ambition, avarice, revenge, lust hyprocrisy and other traits of disorderly appetites race with the goodness of man and people are usually concerned with their own welfare first and foremost. This is the evidence of history. “Society”, Burke says, “requires not only that the passion of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body. well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled and their passions brought into subjection.” The best that can be done is to control the worst manifestations of human perversity by means of political authority. The people are bound by rules of common behaviour and their violation is accompanied by punishment. That is the State. Society meets man’s companionship, the state solves the problems created by such companionship. The State, is thus some form of association with same special characteristics,
particularly that of its territorial connection and of its use of for is charged with the duly to maintain those condition of life for the State came into existence and for which it continues to exist
The State is a natural, a necessary and a universal institution is natural because it is rooted in the reality of human nature in necessary, because, as Aristotle said. “The State comes into exista originating in the bare needs of life and continuing in existence for, sake of good life.” Man needs the State to satisfy his diverse needs and to be what he desires to be. Without the State he cannot rise to the full stature of his personality. In fact, in the absence of such a controlling and regulating authority, society cannot be held together and there will be disorder and chaos. What food means to the human body the State means to man. Both are indispensable for his existence and development The State is, accordingly, a universal institution. It has existed whenever and wherever man has lived in an organised society, although the term State is the product of the sixteenth century and Machiavelli was the first to give it a scientific meaning. He observed, “all the powers which have had and have authority over man are state (state) and are either monarchies or republics.” The structure of the state had been subject lo a great evolution. The general process was from the similar and simple mechanism of the past to a highly dissimilar and complex mechanism of today.
Definition of the State. Though the State is necessary and a universal institution, no two writers agree on its definition. There have been may different views about the nature of the State and hence its incompatible definitions. It may well seen curious say R.M. Maclver, that go great and obvious a fact as the State should be the object of quite conslicting definitions. “Some writers define the State as essentially a class structure… other regard it as the one organisation that transcends class and stands for the whole community. Some interpret it as a power system others as a welfare system… Some view it entirely as a legal construction, either in the old Austinion sense which made it a relationship of government and governed, or, in the language of modern jurisprudence, as a community ‘organised for action under legal rules. Some identify it with the nation others regard nationality as incidental or unnecessary or even as a falsifying element which inhibits the State in its natural functions. Some regard it as a mutual insurance society, . others as the very texture of all our life. To some it is a necessary evil, and to a very few an evil that is or will be unnecessary someday, When to others it is the word the spirit has made for itself. Some class the
state as a one in the order of corporations’ and others think of it as indistinguishable from society itself.” Gabriel Almond prefers to use the term “Political system” for the State, as the latter is limited by legal Toid institutional meaning. This disagreement is primarily due to the Care that every writer has defined it from his own point of view. is the Guthor is a sociologist, like Oppenheimer or a philosopher life Hegel, non economist, or a behaviourist, or a lawyer, his peculiar
prepossessions may lead him either to distort the reality by emphasising come actual characteristics of the State and ignoring the rest, or to free himself altogether from reality and picture the State as he thinks it ought to be.
Out of this maze of confusion we select a few definitions which fairly represent the weight of authority, and by comparing them try to know what is common in them. Holland defines the State as “a numerous assemblage of human beings, generally occupying a certain territory amongst whom the will of the majority, or of an ascertainable class of persons, is by the strength of such a majority or class, made to prevail against any of their number who oppose it.” Hall says, “The marks of an independent State are that the community constituting it is permanently established for a political end, that is possesses a defined territory and that is independent of external control.” and a State exists according to Oppenheimer, “when a people is settled in a country under its own sovereign government.” Bluntschli ways, “The state is the politically organised people of a definite territory,” and according to Woodrow Wilson, it “is the poeple organised for law within a definite territory.” Maclver defines it as “as association which acting through law as promulgated by government endowed to this end with coercive power, maintains within a community territorially demarcated the universal external conditions of social order.” Harold Laski defines the State as “a territorial society divided into Government and subject claiming, within its allotted physical area, supremacy over all other institutions.” Gabriel Almond says that the Political System, the term he uses for the State, “is that system of interactions to be found in all independent societies which perform the functions of integration and adaptation (both internally and vis-a-vis other societies) by means of the employment or threat of employment, of more or less legitimate physical compulsion.” The Political System, he explains, “is the legitimate, order maintaining or transforming system in the society.”
Pennock and Smith define the State as a political system comprising all the people in a defined territory and possessing an organization
(government) with the power and authority to enforce its will members by resort, if necessary, to physical sanction and not subject the life manner to the power and authority of another polity.” Dahl says, “The political system made up of the residents of the territorial area and Government of the area is a ‘State.”
Notwithstanding the disagreement amongst these writers all agree in ascribing to the State the three elements people territory government. Disagreement again becomes prominent in respect of fourth element of sovereignty. Those who deny to the State the element of sovereignty, attribute a special quality to government. It is habitually obeyed, says Sidgwick; it is superior to individual wishes says Esmein it claims unlimited authority says Zimmern it is endowed with coercive power, says Maclver, it is sovereign the quality of the state. The essence of the State, according to Finer, is in its monopoly of coercion (which it can devolve in many ways on its own terms) is sovereignty. The sovereign is “legally supreme over any individual or group.” says Laski and the sovereign possesses. “supreme coercive power.” The State and government are by no means the same thing. Government is merely an essential instrument or contrivance of the State through which its authority is manifested and purpose realized. Taking cognisance of all such considerations. Garner gives a matter-of-fact definitions of the State. He defines the State as “a community of persons, more or less numerous permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent. or nearly so, of external control, and possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render
Elements of the State
The State must therefore, possess the elements of : 1. Population; 2. Territory; 3. Government; 4. Sovereignty.
1. Population. Two conclusions flow from the discussion on the meaning and nature of the state: (1) that the State is a human institution the product of man’s gregarious nature and the result of necessities of human life. and (2) population and land are the starting point of study of man in his organised groups. It is the people who make State, without them there can be none. But population must be large enough to make a state and sustain it. The members of one single family do not make a State; there should be a series of families. No limit, however, can be placed on the number of the people constituting the State. Difference in population, other things remaining the same, do not make any difference in the nature of the State, although opinions as to its size have varied from time to time.
Plato and Aristotle put definite limitations on the population of the State. Their ideal was the Greek City-State, like Athens and Sparta. Plato fixed the number at citizen. Aristotle held that neither ten nor a hundred thousand could make a good State. Both these number were extremes. He laid down the general principle that the number should be neither too large nor too small. It should be large enough to be self-sufficing and small enough to be well governed. Rousseau, the high priest of direct democracy determined 10,000 to be an ideal number for’a State.
The modern tendency is in favour of State with huge population. It is believed that manpower of the State must swell as population is the sinews of war and power. Hitler’s and Mussolini’s government gave bounties to couples producing children above a given minimum. Issueless and unmarried persons were taxed. The estwhile Soviet Union encouraged the growth of her population. The 1936 Constitution guaranteed State aid and honourse bestowed on members of large families and unmarried mothers. In India, the problem is to check the ever growing population due to the wide disequalibrium between the population and the available means of production. China has a system of incentives and disincentives to observe a one-child family norm.
But the size of the population is no criterion of the State, Monaco and China are entities with equal status of statehood, although the disparity in the population of both these States is significantly marked. Similarly, increase or loss in population makes no difference in its Statehood. Though no limit either theoretical or practical can be placed on the population of State, yet the population must be sufficient to maintain a State organisation, and it should not be more than what the territorial resources of the State are capable of supporting. But behind all these quantitative factors lie qualitative elements in evaluating the problem of the population of a State, Population cannot be reckoned in mathematical terms the kind of people they are matters no less than their’s numbers. Aristotle rightly said that a good citizen makes a good State and a bad citizen a bad State. A good citizen must be intelligent, disciplined and healthy. Healthy citizens are the health of the State, for disease diminishes intelligence, capacity for work, energy, and vitality,it makes for poor production, laziness and lethargy. Similarly good
citizen will not allow religious or political difference to destroy, the State’s unity and security. The people of India have yet to learn the requisites of good citizenship, though in numbers they stand in the front row.
2. Territory. Some writers ignore territory as an element the state Leon Duguit says, “The word State designates the rulers…,” or else the society itself in which the differentiation between rulers and rules exists and in which for that very reason, a public powers exists. Duguit is chiefly interested in the differentiation between rulers and ruler takes place “in almost all human societies, large or small primiti civilised,” and then he tersely says that “territory is not indispeni element in the formation of a State.” Sir John Seeley, too does regard territory as an essential attribute of the State. If a society is hoz together, he maintains by the principle of government, it constitutes state, and Political Science should not concern itself only with the called civilised society. Why should we not say that State are found in deserts of Arabia and in other regions we here the soil is unfruitful and discourages fixed settlement and agriculture? W.W. Willough Magistracy, nor the Constitution. Nor is it indeed the territory over which its authority extends. It is the given community of given individuals. viewed in a certain aspect, namely, as a political unity.
But such view are rarely encountered now. They have been rejected, not on theoretical grounds, but because of certain practical considerations. Even Duguit admits that in practice there can be no State without a fixed territory. Just as every person belongs to a State. so does every square yard of earth. There is no State without its proper territory, large or small and no territory that is not part of some State, large or small. And as far as we personally are concerned it is our
connection with a particular territory that normally creates our membership of State, large or small. And as far as we personally are concerned it is our connection with a particular territory that normally creates our membership of a state. I am a citizen of India, because was born there, or because my father was born there. My fellow citizens are my fellow-residents, and it is this sharing of the same territory that creates most of our common interests. Living together on a common. land welds the people in a community of interest and it is a power.. incentive to fellow feeling. Love for the territory inculcates the spins of patriotism, which has been described in all ages and stages a supreme virtue of man. Some reverentially call their country ‘father’ while others call it “Motherland” and they all invoke his or her blessings
and vow to safeguard it territorial integrity. Territorial integrity of the State is the most cherished sentiment of oneness and the object of patriotism and both together for its permanent existence.
Moreover, the conduct of international relation would be seriously impeded without the requirement of a defined territory. All authorities on International Law are now agreed that a fixed territory must be a condition of Statehood. People and government are not enough. The occupation of a fixed territory is also essential,otherwise the State could not be readily identified and held to account if one attempts to conquer or violate integrity of another.
Land, water and airspace within the defined territorial area comprise thu territory of the State. It embraces the geographical limits of the State, its rivers and lakes. the natural resources it has, and the air space above. Generally, the ‘territorial limits of a State extend to a distance of three miles (4.4 Kilometers) of the sea from the coast though in practice the maritime jurisdiction is sought to be extended further by the States. As a result of the extensive development in aviation, radio-communication and space flights the importance of the territorial sovereignty of the State over air-space has, during recent times assumed a vital role.
There are at present 185 State which are members of the United Nations and along side of such giants as China, India and the United State there are such pigmies as Monaco, Renitria and Luxembourg as independent States. No limit, like population, can be put on the territory of the State, although opinion has differed on the population utility of a small a big State. Plato drew a close analogy between the stature of a well-formed man the size of a normal State. Aristotle was also favourably inclined towards the State of a moderate size. Rousseau took his cue from Plato’s analogy and set definite limits tot he size of a well governed State. He maintained that in general “a small State is proportionately stronger than a large one.” Montesquieu said that there is necessary relation between the size of the State and the form of government best adapted to it.
Popular government it is claimed can be applied only to small State. In a small state the population is limited and the people have the best opportunity to assemble together and express their opinions. They can exercise vigilance, which is the price of democracy, far more effectively when the State is small. Do Tocqueville said, “The history of the world offers no instance of a great nation retaining the form of republican government for a long series of years. It may be advanced
with confidence that the existence of a great republic will always be exposed to far greater danger than that of a small one. All the passions which are most fatal to republican institutions spread with an increasing territory while the virtues which maintain their dignity do not augment in the same proportion.” Direct democracy can only flourish in a small State and Switzerland is cited as a living example. A small State, it is further argued argued evinces more unity and greater patriotism. It is a compact class of people who live a corporate life. Each stands for all and all stands for each concentrating their energies collectively in promoting common welfare.
Small States on the other hand are relatively less secure. They fail an easy prey to bigger States which are usually aggressive and history is full examples of many a naked aggression. Hitler in no time trampled Poland and other Central European countries. Japan did the same in the Far East. Recent opinion, is invariably in favour of bigger States. Trietschke, the German philosopher, in his work on “Poltics” (Politik), published a little before World War I, declared that “the State is power,” and it is a sin for the State to be small. He said that even the idea of a small State “is ridiculous on account of its weakness, which in itself is reprehensible because it masquerades as strength.”
Economic resources cannot be left out of account while evaluating the utility of small States. The modern tendency is towards planning and self-sufficiency and it can only be realised when the territory of the State is large enough to abound in a variety of natural resources. The scale of production determines the mode of production. Large-scale production is always accompanied by rationalization of industry in order to advantageously compete in the international market, besides commanding an extensive and stable domestic market. After all the economic conditions of State determine the political stature of its people. In this competing world a large number of small States endanger international peace.
The improved political devices run down the argument that small States are best suited for democracy. The representative system, growing familiar to Europe from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and now taking roots in Asia and Africa, has vastly extended the scope of democratic institutions, autonomy with national unity, diversity with uniformity and it has enabled local communities to retain much of their individual character and yet they co-operate for certain purposes in a single State. .
Big State, according to Trietschke, “are more adapted than small
ones to promote the development of intellectual culture.” The resources which a big State possesses, the talent it can command and the greater genius it can produce immensely help the cultural advancement of a nation and consequently its civilisation. Lord Acton, a great admirer of big States, while summing up the defects of small States says that they “isolate and shut off their inhabitants lo narrow the horizon of their view, and to dwarf in some degree the proportion of their ideas. Public opinion cannot maintain its liberty and purity in small dimensions and the currents that come from large communities sweep over a contracted territory… These States like the minuter communities of the Middle Ages, serves a purpose, by constituting partitions and securities of self-government in the larger States but they are impediments to the progress of society which depends on the mixture of races under the same government.”
The principles of representation and federalism, operating in the ‘transformed mechanical environment, have invalidated some of the political premises of the past and public opinion today veers round big States. Yet, large and small States continue to be discussed. But as long as power remains the primary factor in international politics, States must either be large or make no attempt to play an important political role. It must, however, be emphasised that there should be some proportion between the population and territory of the State. If there ‘is a disproportionate disparity between the two, the State must suffer from all those economic and political disabilities which are natural 10 such a situation. The State, in brief, must be viable or capable of maintaining a separate independent existence. This can be possible only if it has adequate area and resources to support the increasing population and to adequately meet the needs of defence and an efficient administration. The Modern demands for an efficient and up-to-date defence and administration are ever-growing and consume a pretty big slice of the resources all States. :
3. Government. The purpose for which people live together cannot be realized unless they are properly organised and accept certain rules of conduct. They agency created to enforce such rules of conduct and to ensure obedience is called government. Government is the focus of the common purpose of the people occupying a definite territory and it is through this medium that common policies are determined common affairs are regulated and common interests promoted. Without government the people will be just a babel of tongues with no cohesion
and means of collective action. They would divide themselves into groups, parties and even warring associations and thus conditions of utter chaos and even civil war. It is, therefore, imperative that there shuttled be a common authority and a consequent wherever people life. It is the prerequisite of human life and, government is an essential element of the State. The State cannot and does not exist without a government, no matter what form a government may assume.
4. Sovereignty Sovereignty of the State is its most essential and distinguishable feature. A people inhabiting a definite portion of territory and having a government do not constitute a State. They must internally supreme and free from external control. Sovereignty of the State has two aspects internal sovereignty and external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is the State’s monopoly of authority insida boundaries. This authority cannot be shared with any other State and none of its members within its territory can owe obedience to any other State. If the State admits no rival within its own territory, it logitallo, follows that it has no authority outside its own territory. Each State is independent of other States. Its will is its own, unaffected by the will any other external authority. This clarifies the meaning of external sovereignty. We shall return to the discussion of Sovereignty in a later Chapter.
Every State, therefore, must have its population, a definite territory, a duly established government, and sovereignty. Absence of any of these elements denies to it the status of Statehood. Accordingly, the term “State” generally used for the twenty-five units of the Indian Republic or for any one of the listy Slates, which make the United States of America, is a misnomer. None of them is sovereign. They possess the elements of population, territory and government and are autonomous in their own spheres of jurisdiction. But autonomy is not sovereignty and lack of sovereignty does not entitle them to be ranked as States.
State and Government
State and Government. In everyday language the two terms, State and Government, are often used interchangeably as if there is difference between them. The Stuarts in England did not differe between the two with a view to justifying their absolute authority XIV of France used to say. “I am the State.” Some Political philosopher, too, like Hobbes, used the terms State and government as if they were identical in meaning. But the State and government are by no means The same thing. They are not synonymous, for it is perfectly possible
me to conceive of communities, primitive nomadic tribes, for example, which
onymous, for it is a lo conceive of communities are not States’ in the sense in which India. Pakistan United Kingdom and the United States of America are, but which have government in the sense of accepted rules of conduct by which law and order are maintained. Indeed, it could be argued, says Maclver, that “where the family exists and it exists everywhere in human society government already exists.” If this is so, government can exist independently of the State. But no Siale can exist without government. Without a government the “population would be incoherent, unorganized, anarchic mass with no means of collective action.”
Government is the agency of the machinery through which common policies are determined and by which common affairs are regulated and common interest promoted. It is the manifestation of the State and it consists of all those persons, institutions and agencies by which the will and policy of the State is expressed and carried out. It is a misnomer to equate government, as in current speech we sometimes do, with its controlling element, as for instance, a Ministry in Great Britain and India, and the President and his ‘cabinet’ in the United States. When we refers to ‘a change of government in any of these countries, t really means change in the government itself. It is true that a change in the controlling element of government in a State has an important impact on the government, but ministers or a President do not make the whole government. Even emperors and kings abdicate, as did Edward VIII of Britain and King Farouk of Egypt, but with these changes the whole political and administrative structure is not altered. Government includes “the whole network of local institutions elected bodies and appointed officials the whole civil service in all its ramification, down to the lowest official charged with the carrying out of policy.”
. “The State”, declared the United States Supreme Court, “itself is an ideal person, intangible invisible, immutable. Government is an agent within the sphere of its agency of perfect representative, but outside of that it is a lawless usurpation.” Elaborating the point Woodrow Wilson remarked that the State “is juristically wholly organized in its government and can only organization of the State its working machinery. The State has authority of which it is the “bearer,” as Germans express it, is exercised by the government as its agent. It can only do those
things and perform such functions as government is specially authorized
to do in accordance with the provisions and limitations set forth in its charter or constitution. Maclver says “when we speak of the State, we mean the organization of which government is the administrative organ… A State has a constitution, a code of laws, a’ way of setting up its government, a body of its citizen. When we think of this whole structure we think of the State” “It is then, clear that being an agent of the State the government has only a lease of authority, revocable by the sovereign. The State, in brief, is the principal, the master. to which authority the government must ultimately bow. The master in possession of original and plenary authority can take back the powers it has delegated to its agent, diminish them or even expand them at will:
Secondly ,the State possesses the character of permanence and continuity. The controlling elements of government change after expiry of state period or sometimes even earlier and replaced by others, but the State is not subject to this order of change and replacement. It would, however, not be quite accurate to say su on the analogy of Tennyson’s famous poem. “The Brook” that ‘Government come and go, but states go on for ever. States are not eternal. Sovereignty is the essence of the State and as long as a State retains its sovereignty, it loses its character of Statehood. States come to an end, usually by forceful annexation but rarely by the voluntary union of one another. The State also loses it identity when there is a total extinction of its population. But ‘governments’ can and do change without the permanency of the State being disturbed. France had many forms of government between 1789 and today. and every change brought in more or less an entirely new set-up in the political organization of the State, but France remained France. Italy remained Italy when it moved from constitutional to fascist monarchy and then on to a republic. So did Russia of the Tsars after the revolution of 1917. There is no change in the Statehood of Pakistan with the secession of East Bengal. now Bangladesh except for a sizeable diminution in its territory.
Despite these obvious differences, the State and government are identified as if they are one. The State is an abstraction whereas government is emphatically concrete. It is the working machinery of the state and it wields on its behalf that legal authority which is the inherent power of the State. In daily life. It is not so much with the abstract State as with the government that an ordinary man comes into contact. “For those who seek concreteness rather than abstraction,”
says Croce, “The State is nothing but government and assumes complete reality only in the government.” Laski is correct when he says that for the purposes of practical administration, the State is nothing but government, G.D.H. Cole is also of the same opinion. For him, the State is ‘nothing more or less than the political machinery of government in a community. It is indeed, a fact that at a given time and in a given territory, the government tends to incarnate the State as its sole agent and representative, and power is its monopoly. Moreover, it is the type of government in power that gives any State its distinctive political form. Rome was first a republic then an empire. France from 1814 to 1870 was in turn a monarchy, a republic an empire, and again a republic. Britain is now a constitutional monarchy, which she was not until 1688. Pakistan was Islamic Republic till October 8. 1958 when the Constitution was abrogated and Martial Law imposed. It twice became a military dictatorship in between 1958 and 1972 and once again in 1977. All this means that the government of these States are, or were of that particular form. Government and State, thus, become practically identified.
But the difference between the two remains distinct. The characteristics of territoriality and all-inclusiveness point to the basic distinguishing characteristic of the State. The State is both a sociological and a legal entity. I am an Indian, because I belong to the State of India and When I pledge allegiance to the national slag, the State is the entity for which the symbol stands. I do not pledge allegiance to the government whose controlling element, Ministry, is subject to periodical change. Nor do I pledge allegiance to the unorganised mass of people. My only pledge is to this political entity, the State, whose sovereignty and integrity all Indian are pledged to maintain no matter – at what sacrifice. The State is a people organised for law within a the definite territory. Government is its organization to which is delegated.
the power to enforce its will on its members by resort, if necessary, to physical sanctions. The Constitution of the State provides , for the organization of government and it prescribes what it should and what it should not do. If it oversteps the limits so prescribed, actions of the government become unconstitutional and accordingly, void. Finally sovereign and independent States are international entities and the subject matter of international law. Government of a State is only it dealing agency.