Revision summary
Eurocentrism treats European political experience as the universal measure. Post-colonial theory attacks that measure through Said, Fanon, and Chatterjee, and through recovery of Gandhi, Aurobindo, and Ambedkar. The same theory is motivated by European problems of the state, nation, and rights that empire made inescapable. Chakrabarty’s formula is that Europe is indispensable and inadequate. The discussion is of that double relation, not of a simple rejection of all European thought.
Model answer
Introduction
Post-colonial political theory studies how empire organised knowledge, the state, and the self. Eurocentrism is its target because European experience was treated as the universal measure of the political. Eurocentrism is also a motive force because the theory still works by answering, reversing, and using European categories.
Body
Eurocentrism as target
- Eurocentrism is the practice of taking European state, reason, and progress as the standard, and treating other histories as lack or delay.
- Edward Said’s Orientalism showed that academic and literary knowledge of the East was a form of power, which meets Foucault’s power-knowledge thesis in an imperial setting.
- Frantz Fanon analysed colonial violence and the colonised mind; political theory that ignored that scene was incomplete.
- Partha Chatterjee argued that anti-colonial nationalism often copied the modular European nation and then claimed difference in the inner domain of culture.
- Indian materials that the decline-of-political-theory literature ignored — Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, Aurobindo’s swaraj, Ambedkar’s constitutionalism — are recovered as theory, not as local colour.
Eurocentrism as motive force
- The questions of sovereignty, rights, the state, and civil society remain Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Marx, and Rawls questions even when the answer is no.
- Dipesh Chakrabarty’s provincializing Europe states the bind: Europe is indispensable and inadequate.
- Post-colonial writers use historicist time, the nation, and the archive that empire built, even while they criticise them.
- Subaltern studies sought a subject outside elite nationalism and still used Gramscian and Marxist tools.
- Motive force here means that without the European canon as antagonist and resource, the field would not have its present shape.
A balanced discussion
- If post-colonial theory only inverts Europe, it remains Europe-centred in a negative form.
- If it ignores rights, Dahl’s contestation, and Ambedkar’s law, it can romanticise community in the way Sandel and Walzer warn against when community is uncriticised.
- The productive path is to treat Indian, African, and Caribbean political thought as argument in its own right, and still to use European tools where they explain the colonial state that actually existed.
- Eurocentrism is therefore both what the theory attacks and what continues to organise its problems.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD PC[Post-colonial theory] --> T[Target: Eurocentrism] PC --> M[Motive: European categories] T --> S[Said Fanon Chatterjee] M --> H[Hobbes Mill Marx Rawls] PC --> I[Gandhi Aurobindo Ambedkar]
Conclusion
Post-colonial political theory targets Eurocentrism as a false universal. It is also moved by European categories of state, nation, and rights that it must answer. Said, Fanon, Chatterjee, and Chakrabarty show that double relation. Gandhi, Aurobindo, and Ambedkar are the non-European arguments that the field must actually read.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Examine the liberal theory of State in contemporary politics
Next question on this syllabus topic (2022 · Q3(a)). View answer →
-
Does post-colonial theory mean rejecting Mill and Rawls?
It means refusing their silent universality. It still uses liberty and justice as claims against colonial and post-colonial states.
-
Why is Eurocentrism a motive force, not only a target?
Because the colonial state was built in European legal forms, and because the theory defines itself by answering that canon.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
What is the Marxist and liberal approach towards the state? On what grounds the theoretical differences between them are premised? Explain -
2024 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Pluralist theory of State. -
2022 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Examine the liberal theory of State in contemporary politics -
2021 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Feminist critique of the State.
More from this topic
Q2(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
What is the Marxist and liberal approach towards the state? On what grounds the theoretical differences between them are premised? Explain
Theories of the State
The liberal approach treats the state as limited public power justified by consent to protect rights, with law and separated offices as its form. Locke, Montesquieu, Mill, Rawls, and even Hayek share that the individual has claims the state must not devour. The Marxist approach treats the modern state as organised class power, from the Manifesto through Lenin’s smash-and-wither thesis. Gramsci and Poulantzas add hegemony and relative autonomy without dropping the class explanation. The theoretical difference rests on anthropology, property, history, and the meaning of emancipation, not only on liking or disliking a particular government.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Pluralist theory of State.
Theories of the State
Pluralist theory treats the democratic state as an arena of competing organised groups rather than as a single-class or closed-elite machine. Bentley and Truman described politics as group process; Dahl called competitive democracy a polyarchy of multiple minorities. Resources of influence are dispersed, so who governs can vary by issue. Bachrach and Baratz, Lukes, Gramsci, and Lindblom show agenda control, manufactured wants, hegemony, and the privileged position of business. The theory explains open contest in polyarchies; it does not exhaust structural power.
Q3(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Examine the liberal theory of State in contemporary politics
Theories of the State
The liberal state is limited public power justified by consent and rights. Locke and Mill set trust and liberty of thought; Rawls added fair opportunity and the difference principle. Hayek’s neo-liberal state is a market framework, not Rawls’s well-ordered society. India joins liberal limitation (Part III, Kesavananda) to social-revolution tasks (Part IV, Ambedkar). Contemporary politics tests liberalism with populist culture, Emergency memory, and market governmentality.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.