History of India

On the other hand, the story of India from Latin America is different. There were two competing models of society when Indian attained political freedom. One model was that of the capital democracies (Oommen:1996). These democracies had evolved on the principle that state, market and civil society had to be separated. This is belief was based on that: First, the state is an agency of coercion and is motivated by power. Hence, the process of acquiring and exercising power should be well-defined and checked through legal mechanism. Second, economic activity is motivated by material incentives, and is to be regulated by the market mechanism in terms of free exchange. Third, civil society is a free space for voluntary activity for the citizens, between the state and the market, where a variety of political actions could be initiated to moderate the potential authoritarianism of the state and likely the capacity of the market. Each of the spheres—state, market and civil society has acquired certain autonomy and this model has worked in some countries.

In contrast to the separation principle of capital democracies, the socialist society functioned on the other way—fusion of the state, market and civil society (Kaminiski:1992). The party-state monopolized all powers and regulated the market and civil society. The market disappeared from the socialist state’s command economy and civil society was absorbed by the state. The conjoined activity of the one-party system was labeled as people’s democracy.

In the beginning, capitalist democracies were only concerned with creating congenial conditions for their citizens to pursue their preferred pattern of life, protect them from external aggression, and provide them with internal securit...

... middle of paper ...

...it tends to become totalitarian. The point is that none of these actors would likely to remain beyond the blemish and therefore privileging one of them would be a rash and an unsustainable judgment. Thus, marrying the state, civil society and market would produce an ideal state.

It is clear that market economy was considered to be the principal element in the civil society. The autonomization of the market has brought substantial accumulation of wealth by the national bourgeoisie as well as global corporations which came in and invaded the market. To complicate matters, the emerging autonomy where the structural programs has been accepted and caught in the web of globalization and liberalization. The invisible hand of the state is bound to create levels of income disparities and a degree of pauperization unknown to these societies for the past several decades.