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
-
Buddhist thought on Dhamma facilitates the emancipation of political action. Explain
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q4). 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 paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science.
Political Theory
The normative approach asks what political life ought to be and argues about justice, liberty, and obligation. Plato, Aristotle, the contract theorists, Mill, and Rawls are central practitioners. Easton and Dahl supply empirical maps of systems and decisions that cannot replace the question of right. Communitarian critics warn that abstract persons can hide real communities. Indian Parts III and IV show that a constitution is itself a public set of ought-statements.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights.
Political Theory
Multicultural theory treats culture as a condition of using liberty, not as a private hobby. Kymlicka, Taylor, Parekh, and Walzer argue for recognition and, in some cases, group rights. Indian Articles 25 to 30 and linguistic states are the constitutional form of that argument. Ambedkar’s Article 17 and sex-equality limits block a group veto over civil liberty. The perspective fails if it either ignores minorities or traps persons inside the group.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes).
Political Theory
Hobbes’s state of nature is a state of war: a condition of known readiness to fight where there is no common power. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the three causes of quarrel. Natural equality of vulnerability makes pre-emptive violence rational. The sovereign ends the war by monopolising judgment and force. Locke, Mill, and constitutional democracy keep a common power and then limit it, which Hobbes refused as a right against the sovereign.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.