Question

Gandhi theory of sate

Answer 1

In Gandhi’s assessment, the state (Western type) was the symbol of
violence in concentrated form. In order to ensure allegiance from the
citizens the state (which means its authority) applies coercion or
violent measures mercilessly.

Once he said “the individual has a
soul but the state is a soulless machine, the stale can never be weaned
away from violence to which it owes its existence”. In other words,
Gandhi treated both state and violence or coercion synonymous. He
further says that there is a state but not violence or coercion in any
form cannot be imagined.

He gathered experience in South Africa
that more and more power to the state meant more and more violence or
greater amount of coercion. In the name of the maintenance of law and
order the South Africa’s white government acquired enormous power and
this led to the ruthless administration, exploitation and curtailment of
individuals’ liberty.

He once said that a political organisation
based on violence would never receive his approval. Rather, he is always
afraid of such an organisation. What he felt about the Western state
system is quite explicit in a comment which he made, “I look upon an
increase in the power of the state with greatest fear, because although
while apparently doing good by minimising exploi­tation, it does the
greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which is at the
root of progress”.



From the above analysis it is absolutely clear that Gandhi rejected
the state of Western model on the ground that it represented violence or
coercion. Now the question is why did he oppose violence so much? The
modern state, according to Gandhi, was about to destroy
individuality—that individual freedom and spontaneous urge to work.

Secondly,
the individualism is the root cause of progress. Gandhi believed that
nothing could be done by applying coercion. Again, the individual cannot
be forced to do any work against his will or spontaneous desire. To put
it in other words, according to Gandhi the progress of the society can
be achieved through the functions which the individuals perform
willingly.

Here Gandhi appears to us as a great individualist
philosopher. The two great utilitarian philosophers—Bentham (1748-1832)
and J. S. Mill (1806-1872)—wanted to put curb upon the activities of the
state to enhance the quantum of freedom of the individuals. The state,
prescribed by Bentham and Mill, is called limited state. Both Bentham
and J. S. Mill did not approve coercion for demanding allegiance from
the individual’s.

But Gandhi appears to us as more aggressive.
Under any circumstances the individual’s freedom cannot be sacrificed.
Gandhi’s love for individual’s freedom ranks him with the great
anarchist philosophers (we shall discuss his anarchism later on). The
central idea is that to Gandhi state is an undesirable political
organisation because of its close connection with violence.



Sovereignty of State:
Gandhi was not
interested at all in building up a comprehensive and well-argued
political theory. He was a mass leader, philosopher and freedom fighter.
On various issues and situations he expressed opinions which constitute
certain aspects of political theory and state sovereignty is such a
theory. In Western political thought, state sovereignty is a much talked
theory and large number of scholars and philosophers has dealt with
this concept. Bodin and Hobbes are chief among them.



Hope this helps!!

Answer 2

Gandhi's critique of the modern state was central to his political thinking. It served as a pivotal hinge between Gandhi's anticolonialism and his theory of politics and was given striking institutional form in his vision of decentralized peasant democracy. This essay explores the origins and implications of Gandhian antistatism by situating it within a genealogy of early twentieth-century political pluralism, specifically British and Indian pluralist criticism of state sovereignty and centralization. This essay traces that critique from the imperial sociology of Henry Sumner Maine, through the political theory of Harold Laski and G. D. H. Cole, to Radhakamal Mukerjee's reworking of these strands into a normative–universal model of Eastern pluralism. The essay concludes with a consideration of Gandhi's ideal of a stateless, nonviolent polity as a culmination and overturning of the pluralist tradition and as integral to his distinctive understanding of political freedom, rule, and action.

Hope it helps you.....
please mark my answer as brainliest...