Revision summary
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.
Model answer
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651) treats the state of nature as a state of war. War here is not only open battle. It is a known disposition to fight when there is no common power to keep all in awe.
Body
Why nature is war
- Hobbes starts from natural equality of vulnerability: the weakest can kill the strongest by secret plot or alliance.
- Three causes of quarrel follow: competition for scarce goods, diffidence (fear of being attacked first), and glory (reputation).
- Without a common judge, each has a natural right to everything that seems necessary to self-preservation, including another’s body.
- The result is continual fear and danger of violent death, and a life that cannot support industry, agriculture, or science.
- Covenants without the sword are words. Only a sovereign with effective power ends the war by monopolising judgment and force.
What the claim is not
- The state of nature is a logical reconstruction of life without political authority, not a dated anthropology of all tribes.
- Locke denied that nature is already war; he treated it as inconvenience without an impartial judge, and he kept a right of revolution.
- Rousseau treated unsocialised humans as not yet in Hobbesian war; war arrives with property and comparison.
- Foucault later studied power inside the ordered state, which Hobbes had pictured as the exit from war, not as war by other means.
Political use
- The argument justifies a strong sovereign, including in a commonwealth by institution, because the alternative is insecurity.
- Limited government after Locke, Mill, and Dahl’s polyarchy accepts the need for a common power and then binds that power by law, rights, and contestation.
- Indian public order clauses and the Union’s duty to protect States against internal disturbance (Article 355) still assume that political authority exists to prevent a return to private force.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD SN[State of nature] --> EQ[Equal vulnerability] EQ --> W[State of war] W --> S[Sovereign common power] S --> P[Peace and industry] L[Locke Mill] --> LIM[Limits on that power]
Conclusion
Hobbes identifies the state of nature with a state of war because equal vulnerability, competition, fear, and glory have no common judge. The sovereign is the exit. Later liberals keep the common power and add legal limits that Hobbes did not grant against the sovereign.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Decline of political theory.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2023 · Q1(e)). View answer →
-
Did Hobbes say all historical societies began in war?
No. The state of nature is an analytical condition of no common authority. It is used to justify why that authority is needed.
-
How does this differ from Locke?
Locke’s nature has natural law and property; war is a later degeneration. Hobbes makes war the default of ungoverned equality.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science. -
2023 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights. -
2023 · Q1(e) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Decline of political theory. -
2023 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Success of contemporary democracies lies in the State limiting its own power. Explain -
2023 · Q2(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
'Credo of Relevance' in post-behaviouralism advocates the importance of action science. Analyze -
2023 · Q4(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
"The legal subordination of one sex to another is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human development." (J. S. Mill). Comment -
2022 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Systems Approach. -
2022 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Cultural Relativism.
More from this topic
Q8(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
With reference to Peruvian experience of planning and economic development, examine how the early phase of economic planning in India has laid the foundation for future development
Political Theory
Peru’s mid-century development mixed export oligarchy with a radical military-planning interlude under Velasco, then crisis and neoliberal reversal. Indian early planning under the Planning Commission and the Mahalanobis strategy built public industry, technical education, and a durable idea of state-led structural change. India’s process was parliamentary and federally argued; Peru’s surge was corporatist and more easily dismantled. Critiques of the Hindu rate of growth and of controls do not cancel the foundational industrial and administrative capacity. The comparison shows that planning founds future development when institutions outlast a single regime, which India did more than Peru.
Q8(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
The decision to conduct Population Census-2027 has reopened the debate on consultation in India. Discuss its various aspects
Political Theory
Census 2027 is a political institution because it will affect delimitation, finance, and recognition after a delayed 2021 count. Federal consultation is required in spirit even though Census is a Union subject, especially for southern states that fear seat and fund losses. Caste enumeration and the NPR reopen debates on identity, privacy, and citizenship trust. Women’s parliamentary reservation is legally tied to post-census delimitation, so consultation on the formula is part of the census debate. A digital method needs consultation on exclusion and data security, or legibility will be mistaken for consent.
Q8(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Illustrate with examples how regional parties in India have played a crucial role in drawing the historically disadvantaged groups into the mainstream political system
Political Theory
Regional parties have been decisive vehicles for bringing historically disadvantaged groups into governing politics, not only into vote banks. The BSP made Dalit bahujan power executive in Uttar Pradesh; the DMK mainstreamed non-Brahmin and Tamil publics through Dravidian organisation and welfare. TMC incorporated rural poor, women, and minorities as the decisive Bengal coalition after the Left. TRS/BRS turned a backward region’s dignity claim into a state elite; AAP incorporated urban and agrarian users of public services; JMM brought Adivasi demands into Jharkhand’s party government. Jaffrelot’s silent revolution and Yadav’s democratic upsurges describe this incorporation, which creates new elites even as it opens the system.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.