Power Structure in Indian Villages

India being an agricultural country, power has been concentrated with the owner of the land. power during the British rule. The structure was based on the Zamindari system. The landlord is the entire villager. Directly and indirectly operated and controlled the economic system. In this way rural power during the British rule. The structure was in the hands of the feudal society. These zamindars and talukdars had unlimited agricultural land. He was the owner of immense wealth. They had monopoly over the entire rural economic system and caste organization. That’s why this land. Swami was very powerful. These feudal lords used to represent ‘Shakti’. They had a lot of influence and pressure on the Panchayati system as well. The British government gave the right to collect revenue to the landlords and this policy made them extremely powerful. The zamindars and talukdars were also given judicial rights in the ownership of land. These persons were considered the owners of the land and the rest of the people were called raiyats who had only the right to plow the land and cultivate it in lieu of paying rent. The servitor and shudra castes also worked completely according to the orders of the landlords. In this way, the feudal lords had unlimited rights and power during the British rule. It used to happen in the villages as Che wanted. Nothing could happen in the village against his will. Village Panchayats. Village panchayats have been an important means of power of the rural society, but this institution was also dominated by the landlords. Representatives were kept in it only after taking the opinion of the zamindars, irrespective of their class and caste. Only the confidants and servants of the landlords used to get a place in it.

It was such an important institution that controlled the entire rural system. It also used to listen to the appeals of the caste panchayats and land related disputes. Caste Panchayats. Caste panchayats have had their place as a force in the rural structure. They used to protect special castes. They used to protect people of different castes from their enemies. However, caste panchayats were made powerless by giving superpowers to the feudal lords during the British rule. Their existence had ended. The British police system also hurt the power and organization of caste panchayats. Till the abolition of Zamindari, caste panchayats were like dead. It was only in the lower castes that they were seen as disintegrated. The main function of caste panchayats was to protect their castes and to punish any person who violates caste rules. They had an important role in maintaining caste policies. Today the village panchayat system has made its narrow boundaries. Their main objective is to protect their caste and if other castes harass them, they have to face them. Due to all this caste factionalism has increased in the rural areas. These Panchayats are now engaged in usurping power, due to which tension, conflict and hatred among different castes is increasing.

 

variable phase of power

The root cause of the poverty, poverty and backwardness of the rural society was the Zamindari system and the feudal state. This class exploited the rural poor, uneducated superstitious and fatalistic villagers for centuries. That’s why after independence, laws were made in every state to end the Zamindari system. Uttar Pradesh Panchayat State Act in 1948 and Uttar Pradesh in 1951

 

Zamindari Abolition Acts were made. As soon as the zamindari system ended, the land The power of Swami and Zamindari has not only decreased, but today their power has ended. In its place, village panchayats and justice panchayats have been established, which are for rural administration. Resolves their quarrels. Today the traditional form of power in the rural structure has ended. Elections are held for the office bearers of village panchayats and co-operative societies. That’s why the leader tries to win the election through things like casteism, factionalism, partyism etc. to make the villagers in his favor. After independence, not only the traditional structure has changed in the structure of rural power, but a new dimensional structure has also emerged in its place. The practice of gaining power on the basis of land has come to an end. The power is going out of the hands of the landlords and feudal lords, the exploited class, the minority class, the backward class, the low and poor class, with time awareness has arisen. They have started fighting for their rights. The rural power today is actually in the hands of the M.L.A.M.P. of the village and the ministers of the same area. Today power is obtained through democratic method. Today no one can become M.L.A.M.P. or minister on the basis of caste property and being a land owner. He cannot even become the head of the village unless he is victorious in the election. In this way, the paradigm of rural power structure has completely changed after independence. casteism in rural area to grab this power

There has been a huge increase in prohibition, party ban, pressure etc. This has created things like separation, conflict, competition, estrangement and tension among the individuals of the entire village. That is why the rural societies have also disintegrated like the cities.

 

types of village leaders

The village leader can be divided into two

, 1) The formal leader. They are appointed by the government or by any law of the state. Behind them is the expression of the government. The members of the Gram Panchayat approved and approved by the government, Patwari and Mukhiya etc. come in this category.

, 2. Informal leader. These are those leaders who, despite not being leaders from the official point of view, become leaders traditionally or according to social rules. After the formation of Panchayati Raj, the leaders of Panchayat etc. have come under the formal leader whereas earlier Panch or Sarpanch were also informal leaders. Caste . Leaders who are in charge of Panchayat or other social organizations are also informal leaders. There is a difference in government rules between formal and informal leader, there is also a substantial difference in their work area, rights and beliefs. The formal leader has legal power in his hands and therefore by force of law he exerts influence on others. The formal leader has to be followed even if others don’t want to. In this sense, formal leadership is compulsion while informal leadership is based on people’s willingness, faith and goodwill. The Indian rural person is not as much afraid of the law as he is of customs and traditions etc. He is not only afraid but also has a feeling of respect in his heart. People whose ideals are high, only they are respected in the society. Henry Ornstein wrote in his article A ‘ these are the essential characteristics of leadership. High caste status, good economic status and an age that can get respect. sh

 

Some other scholars have described the leaders of the villages as two types.

 

, 1. Primary leader. They have great importance in rural life. The group is completely affected by them. Such leaders are mostly from high families. They attain complete maturity in terms of experience, body and mind. He does everything for his group. Their position is important. They are not consulted in matters of law and disputes etc.

 

, 2nd secondary leader. These are the leaders who get less respect than the primary leaders. From the point of view of position, age, prestige, etc., their position is less. Often the primary leaders take advice from them and have also been seen dependent on their help. The influence of government leadership is less. Official leadership comes under formal leadership. Its effect on the group is relatively weak. There are some reasons for this failure. For the leadership to have a natural impact on the villagers, it is necessary that their values, ideals and ideas are well understood. No plan and planning can be successful unless it is compatible with the values, ideals and ideas of the group. This is lacking in government leadership. People from the leadership forcibly imposed from above. Cooperation can never be obtained. By showing tolerance with them and working keeping in mind their culture, values and thoughts, leadership can be made successful. Bhole. The Bhale villagers are not as fond of economic benefits as they are of their values, ideals etc. Caste in Indian villages. Pant e high. Economic development of the villagers can be done by understanding the vile fights and superstitions properly.

 

 

Emerging Patterns of Leadership in Indian Villages

 

The expansion of education, advancement of means of transport and communication, some credit of machines in cities is due to government efforts and the rest is due to social forces, including more experiments, contacts in villages and cities, and more activity of political parties leaders in rural community. . For all these reasons the traditional form of rural leadership To . The day is changing. Traditionally the elders of the village. The elders were the leaders of the village and that in the sense that they are often the village panchayat e caste. They belonged to Panchayat or other social organization and in that form they used to influence others in various ways. At that time the basis of leadership was very much age. There was no development of individualism like today, due to which big The feeling of respect and reverence towards the elders had not died like today. K. L. Sharma, after studying some villages of Uttar Pradesh, came to the conclusion regarding the traditional leadership that the traditional leadership was more loyal. The main reason for this was that earlier the size of the village was small, each family knew each other closely. The basis of social relationship was actually family relationship. Its expression as chacha e tau e nana etc. had become characteristic. People had respect for their loved ones and when they grew up with him. When there was a feeling of respect towards the elders, then the rural leadership used to shine in its affected form. Today that condition is changing and something has already happened. These changes are as follows

, 1) Leadership is not hereditary today, earlier the posts of Panch or Sarpanch were hereditary, the father’s post had to be handled by the son. Now the situation has changed somewhat. Today, leaders are made through elections.

 

, 2nd Rural Leader

The importance of caste is decreasing in the society. Earlier, members of the upper castes were often the leaders of the village, but the modern era is of adult franchise and that too of secret election. That’s why the dominant position of the upper castes is no longer there. In fact, the relation of village panchayat etc. has now become with the entire village and not with any particular caste. Therefore, it is also natural for the importance of caste to decrease.

 

, 3) In today’s changed situation, the importance of education in rural leadership has increased. According to Becken Heimer, education is developing into a valuable asset for rural leadership. It is very important for a leader to be educated. Education is the basis of rural leadership nowadays.

 

, 4) The tendency of specialization is found in the rural leadership today. Earlier the leader of the village was an all-rounder, he intervened in every field and everyone recognized him as such. But today it is different in the village. There is a special leader of a different region. Teacher A woman in the field of education. Development officers etc. in the field of women’s leadership and development for running the programmes. be a leader in your field

 

, 5) The importance of age in rural leadership is also decreasing. Big first. The elders used to be the leaders of the villages but today it is not necessary. Today in the new generation it is not necessary that the leader should be big. Get old The main reason for this is that today a kind of awareness has developed among the people.

 

, 6) The importance of money in rural leadership has become visible rather than indirect. Earlier, rich people, especially the landlord class, automatically became leaders without any competition, now money is used to buy voters, but since leaders are mostly elected, the importance of money has been assumed indirectly. Although in practical terms the importance of money cannot be denied.

 

, Political awareness is one of the remarkable changes taking place in the rural leadership in modern times. The leader may be from any field, he becomes a supporter of some political party in some form or the other.

 

, 8) Changes related to duties and rights in rural leadership are also taking place rapidly in modern times. Earlier there was more emphasis on authority than on duty because leadership was hereditary and because leadership was held by the upper castes. Today with authority. We have to show even by working together, otherwise there is a fear of losing our seat in the elections. It is very clear from the above description that the rural leaders are not what they were earlier. Leadership in villages is losing its old form and taking on a new form in this changing society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rural Power Structure & Leadership

, tntans chvumat aijtanbajantam ru smunkamteipach ddh

 

 

 

 

Altekar and Puri, A. Henry Main, A. Oscar Lewis, and Yogendra Singh have described the methodology for the study of patterns of leadership spanning the power structure in rural India. Along with these, sociologists like Chandra Prabhat, Leela Dubey and L.P. Vidyarthi have included in their studies the rural leadership which is determined on the basis of rural power structure. The reason for this is that leadership occupies a prominent place in the power structure of rural society.

 

J. B. Chitambar says that there are some people in the power structure of every society who encourage and inspire people, guide them or influence people to do things. We call such actions as leadership and such persons as leaders. In the Indian rural society, the concept of leadership and the functions of the leaders are currently undergoing a change.

 

power structure in society

 

In fact an all. The common man not only exhibits being but also an interpersonal process of all values. In this way, the common man is an organized society from the political point of view. According to Karl Mannheim, by common man we mean all those groups and leaders who play an active role in the organization of society. On understanding from the sociological point of view, all. The common man remains rooted in all these political and political related units. When we use the word ‘politically related’, then the word political is used for problem groups and people. Along with this, the topics of family or employment also come in it. Karl Mannheim also states that the task of the political sociologist is to describe the types of co-operation between all the political groups occupying a given social structure. The major sociologists here are their relations of control, which in the democratic sense can also be of hierarchical, federal or co-ordinating type.

 

In other words, we shall consider all those groups which combine several political processes of governing, leading, coordinating etc. Under this analysis, political sociology gets an opportunity to pay proper attention to those social forces which are traditionally not controlled by the state and do not come under the purview of the bureaucratic system, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the old dichotomy of state and society. could end. The meaning of ‘power’ is interpreted differently in political and psychological way, whereas in sociological way, power is explained in a completely different way.

In fact, power should not only be considered similar to the political system in the social structure, but it also includes the coordinating aspect of structure and stratification. Yogendra Singh, while explaining power, has written that in the sociological interpretation of power, all such personal, social, historical and economic elements interacting within the society can be included, which result in dominance and subordination or control and control of interests. A method of social relations is developed under the structure of individuals and controllers i.e. persons with power. In fact, power is the focal point that influences social order, social process, social change and social dynamism. All the processes of social balance and imbalance can be understood only by keeping the changing power structure at the center.

 

 

Dr. Yogendra Singh studied the power structure in six villages of Uttar Pradesh. M. N. Srinivas and Shyamacharan Dabe have mentioned the methodology of studying rural leadership patterns. Srinivas Prabhu caste in the rural leadership; The concept of Kvaupdandaj Benjamin has been given an important place, while Dubey Prabhu considers the concept of leadership to be limited to a few individuals rather than caste. Prabhat Chandra has studied rural leadership in favor of traditional leadership in an article written by him. In the collected work of Park and Ticker, ‘Leadership and Political Institutions in India’, many scholars have given their . Present your studies. In these many articles have been written by Propler A. Budd A. Hikank A. Orenstein A. Beals McCormack A. Harper etc. Ma, Smt. Leela Dubey, A. Rai, A. Dr. Kothari, A. L. P. Vidyarthi etc. have mentioned the concept, methods and facts of leadership in India. On the basis of many articles presented in the Seminar on Tribal and Rural Leadership held in Ranchi in 1962, Mr. Vidyarti has edited the book ‘Leadership in India’, which is a classic work on the study of rural tribal leadership. In this way we see that many scholars have written their articles on rural structure and leadership. Present your studies. We must bear in mind that the power structure is never independent in itself. Leadership is an important medium through which a particular form of power is made effective. Before we try to understand the power structure and leadership paradigm, let us understand that power; Chvumat ddh a power structure; Finance and leadership; what is smankamteipach d

 

 

Social power in the village community since time immemorial; The status of a person is determined on the basis of Chhoomat. Many religious texts, historians and scholars have mentioned about the political system of the villages of ancient India. A common feature that has been observed about historical political systems is the role of status conferred in ancient times in determining social power; But the importance was given to the title and not the achieved status; । The names of A. S. Altekar and B. N. Puri are notable in the study of Indian rural political system by many scholars. You have presented a detailed study of the ancient rural political system in your book ‘State and Government in Ancient India’. , Henry Main in ‘Village Communities in the East and West’ mentions the presence of council of elders and headmen in Indian villages. Lewis studied faction and leadership in northern India.

 

 

concept of power; world music and technology

 

Power as a concept is related to the performance of a particular status and its associated role. Power means the ability to control the actions of others. This means that no matter what situation a person is in, the extent to which he can control the behavior of others, the more power he has. gets accomplished.

 

 

According to Max Weber, in general, we call power the condition of one person or several persons executing the will on others or completing it even when the other person opposes it. SH

 

A. Horton and Hunt; Bhvatjavandakbhandaj has written in Sociology that ‘power’ means the ability to control the actions of others. This means that no matter what situation a person is in, the extent to which he can control the behavior of others, the more power he has. gets accomplished.

 

It is clear from both these definitions that power is such a capability inherent in a person or a group by which the person or group holding the power compels others to behave according to their will even if they do not wish and all He becomes successful in getting the decision done in his own favor.

 

,

 

Chitambar states that the individuals or groups who exercise their influence on the society formally or informally, those individuals form the power structure in the society.

 

In every society, some individuals or groups acquire so much power due to their special abilities that they can use it effectively at any time. in society

This model of influence is one such mechanism; Forms a community or system that unites individuals and groups involved in decision making related to a particular subject.

 

 

In general, this power can be understood through four main forms.

 

, a) the power of the elite a)

, b) Power of organized group

, c) Power of unorganized people and

, (d) Power of law.

 

The power of the aristocracy is related to those persons who share their wealth and work. Due to skill or influence, they occupy high positions and influence other people by the power of their position. Apart from this, there are such organizations of industrialists, doctors, professors, lawyers or farmers in every society who use their power in an organized manner. Generally, the strength of these organizations lies in the number of their members and the size of the organization. Sometimes . Sometimes unorganized people also display their power on various occasions. The power of unorganized people is generally used in two forms. Either by showing non-cooperation in a particular situation, or by voting in a democratic system, by supporting or opposing something. Finally, a law is such a legal form of power that the opinion of the whole society; And Bajpavddh is obtained. Law is such a formal structure of power by which rights and obligations of all people are defined and control is established in the society. Societies in which the secondary group . relations; Yambavadkantal latvanach tsamsanjpavade predominates, where law is seen in the clearest form of power.

 

Thus it is clear that in every community there are definitely some people who have power. This person is responsible for group decisions and individual behavior. play an important role in determining the patterns. Under a group, in which class this power will be spread and what will be the nature of the relationship between people with power and other people, this is the main basis by which a special power structure is formed in the group. In every society, the structure of the rural community is very different from the urban communities, so the power structure there also has its own characteristics. In such a situation, it is necessary that the rural

 

By clarifying the nature of power structure, the nature of rural social structure should be clarified in its context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

power structure; chvm

 

 

Parsons calls power one such generalized capacity of social order; Lamdamtanspramak Bnchambapjal is believed to be aimed at fulfilling the interests of the collective goals. Thus we see that Horton and Max Weber have defined power as a capacity inherent in a person or persons, by which a person holding power imposes his will on other people even against their will. .

Parsons considers power as a social system which is used for the fulfillment of collective objectives. Mit In the above context, we can say that there are some people or groups in the society who have such ability due to some qualities or abilities that they can use it in special circumstances. In society, the model of influence creates a structure that links decision-making individuals and groups. Individuals or groups who have influence in the society, either formally or informally, form the power structure in the society.

 

 

Power resides in the leadership or group of people who hold power and they use their powerful influence to provide direction to the people. These forces work in the society through small groups or in other forms. Sometimes power formally works in the society by taking the form of authority, sometimes it informally controls the society through a person or group and plays an important role in decision making. influence ; The pattern and form of Pdsinmadbam can be any, but it is definitely found in every society. Pattern of influence in rural society; Chanjjamatd v pidsinmadbum can be seen as the overall power structure and leadership. While defining power, Horton and Hunt write that power is the ability to control the actions of others. Max Weber also interprets power in the same way. Generally, we call “power” by a person or many people to impose their will on others or fulfill it even when others resist it.

 

Thus power in society can be seen in two forms. , a power; Second effect in Najeevatpajal; In the form of Psinmadbam. Influence can be defined as the power exerted by individuals and groups to influence the behavior and actions of people in society, including power structures and leadership. Horton and Hunt refer to the effect in a limited sense. According to him, influence means the ability to influence the behavior and decisions of others without power. Legitimate power to power; smahapajapunjam can be defined as ‘chvumat’ which is obtained as a result of holding a position

It arises by which a person or a group gets the right to command other people, controls their behavior. Power is the formal power that a person gets by virtue of holding a position. Influence gives a sense of informal power. The rights and powers that the District Magistrate has are due to the holding of his office. Therefore, we will call the power of the District Magistrate as power. The power that a kind, sociable and religious old man in the village has is informal, it will be called his influence. Receives power due to the post of Prime Minister or President. We will call their power as power. Whereas we will call the power of Mahatma Gandhi as influence. Hence it is clear that power is constitutional power; smahapajapunjam is chvumat, whereas effect is illegal power; Image. Samhapajapunjam chvumat ddh. Power also has a close relation with culture. Different power of elderly men and women in family decision making in Indian culture. is different. In India, married men have more power in decision making than women, while in western countries the power of women is more than that of Indian women. Power is exercised indirectly in the society by units of social structure such as institutions and organizations. In this form, power takes a formal form. Ja Shakti manifests in many forms in the society. It has four main forms. , The elite, the organized power, the power of the relevant people and the power of the law. less aristocratic; In the society, such a group of people is found who hold power due to their wealth, ability to work and influence or because of high positions, we call them elite.

 

organized power; In a well-controlled society, there are some organizations which get the support and approval of the public and those organizations exercise their power. For example, students, lawyers, doctors, teachers, farmers and industrialists have significant power and influence in the society. These people used to display their power through communication e letter. Magazines, radio, television etc. are used. Different organizations exercise power on the basis of their numbers.

 

power of the unorganized people; Unorganized people also have power, although they are never used. Happens only sometimes. People express their power by vote and by cooperation and non-cooperation in any work. Law ; It is the legal form of pure power which gets the consent of the people of the society. It is representative of an organized and formal structure. Law regulates the behavior of people. The rights and responsibilities of the people are defined and those who disobey the rules are punished. It is clear from the above discussion that there are some people in every society and community who are influential and powerful. They play an important role in collective decision making. Such people and groups holding power are related to each other and form the power structure in the society. They exercise their power informally. After understanding the concept of power structure, we will mention here the traditional and modern forms of power structure in Indian villages.

 

 

Power ; Defining ‘choice’, Weber wrote that the possibility of imposing one’s will on the behavior of other persons is called power. In this sense, the basis of most of our social relations is this concept of power. In person, in the marketplace, on the stage of speech, in sports, in offices, even in courtship. Wants to establish and demonstrate his influence by using power even on the occasions of banquet etc. Even after this, it is necessary to keep in mind that the power used by a person at all places and occasions is not of the same nature. Shakti can be understood with the help of its two forms. , 1) The first form of power is that which is acquired by us by virtue of possessing certain things and due to mutual interests some others also accept them. , The second type of power is that which a person receives from an established institution and which entrusts him with the right to give certain orders. Weber has addressed this second form of power by the name of ‘power’. This implies that power implies an institutional force; Pdjepjanjpavdans is from Chumutdh. In other words, it can be said that authority is such a power that is given to a person by a sovereign person or institution and by this the authority is given to that person to give some orders. The difference between power and authority can be easily understood by an example. Weber states that a large central bank can impose any conditions on its customers for giving loans or having business relations with them due to their economic status and creditworthiness, and the customers also agree to those conditions in view of the monopoly of that bank on the market. Let’s accept This is the ‘power’ exercised by the bank over the customers. Such a bank does not exercise any kind of power regarding lending but due to its own interests the customers automatically accept its power. On the other hand a ruler when the behavior of some people

gives an order to effect then it is not a matter of the will of the people to obey it or not because there is law or any other kind of authority behind the order of the government. A successful organization is recognized. Through these examples, Weber made it clear that power is a condition in which certain elements are included. These are elements. , (1) to be a ruler or a group of rulers; (2) the existence of some people in the form of subjects or groups of common people; 3) The ruler has a desire to influence the behavior of the common people in order to give some orders and; 4) Directly or indirectly the presence of any such law or tradition by which the general public begins to understand that it is bound to follow that order. 17 Thus Weber’s view is that authority is a condition in which there is an order between the ruler and the ruled. Consists of legal relations to give and follow them. The ruler and the governed do not only mean the government and the public, but also the people who give orders and follow the orders in any organization or establishment.

 

Weber also considered the question as to what are the conditions that perpetuate power in various social organisations. c are d in other words a who they . There are reasons that motivate people to recognize a particular authority. Weber clarified this situation on the basis of several conditions. 38 First of all, the people who have power, they remain more organized because of less in number. Also, by maintaining the secrecy of their policies and decisions, they become successful in maintaining their power. On the other hand, it is always the endeavor of the sovereign people to maintain their power in one way or the other, because only by doing so they can fulfill their interests. Thirdly, even among the people who accept the authority, there are many people whose interests are protected only by following the orders related to the authority. Such people also keep on convincing other people that it is in their interest to believe in authority and follow its orders. Lastly, one of the reasons for the permanence of power is that on the one hand, rulers or all those in power keep proving their superiority on one or the other basis, and on the other hand, they try to link the subordination of common people to their inefficiency or luck. Huh . These In such situations, ordinary people start seeing it as their moral duty to give recognition to the authority. In different societies and different conditions, Weber clarified the legitimacy of authority in three forms. It means that a special authority tries to justify its power to give orders on three different grounds. That’s why we often call them “different types of power”. Weber has addressed these three types in the name of legal authority, traditional authority and miraculous authority.

 

 

, 1) Legislative authority; Smahansa

 

According to Weber, legal authority is that under which some people are given rights to use power by some special rules. In other words, it can be said that the people who are given the authority to give some special orders by the law, we address their power by the name of legal power. Explaining Weber’s views, Abraham and Morgan have written in this regard that the form of legal authority has always existed in every era of history, but in modern societies, we can accept bureaucracy as the most important link of legal authority. . legal from this point of view

 

 

By authority, Weber mainly means the administrative structure. Such a power is a rational power; Tnjapavdansa is the lifeblood in which efforts are made to safeguard social objectives and social values. In a society, the people who get legal power, their election is not done arbitrarily, but their appointment is done through a special legal process. The power of such people is not related to their personal prestige, but the rights given to them due to being appointed to a special position under the law, their power remains limited to that. This means that there is a special area of legal authority, beyond which the persons related to it cannot use their power. The statutory authority makes it clear that a person is an official and a person. are different from the other. It also means that the legal authority does not allow any person to use the authority for his personal gain. In order to maintain the validity of this power, it is expected from its officer that he will complete all the proceedings related to the use of his rights in writing. On the other hand, persons who are subject to statutory authority obey various orders from the point of view that they are obeying the statute or laws and not from the point of view that they are duty bound to obey the orders of any particular person. . It means that the source of legal authority is the constitution or the law itself. Through these laws, some people are given the right to give orders under a certain procedure while others are expected to follow those orders. According to Weber, in each age

The ruling power has definitely existed in one form or the other. For example, even in ancient times, some persons were appointed by the king to positions like priests, ministers, generals and judges. All such persons had certain rights and these people exercised their legal power within the limits of their rights. Even then, a clear form of legislative authority is related to the administrative structure of modern states in which different people are united under a developed bureaucracy. Different amounts of legal power are given to others and a certain stratification is seen in the rights of all such persons. In this regard, it is necessary to keep in mind that legal authority is not only related to political institutions, but legal authority can also be seen in religious, economic and educational institutions. For example, some time ago the chief minister of Punjab

 

Minister Surjit Singh Barnala’s order for police action in the Golden Temple of Amritsar clarifies his legal authority. A few days after this action, Barnala was punished by the orders of the five chief granthis of the Akal Takht, which Barnala also accepted. This means that under the laws of religious institutions, they also have a legal authority which is accepted by the followers of that religion. Even after this, the legal authority of any religious or economic organization does not have as much stability as is found in the legal authority of the state. For example, when Barnala was again punished by the Granthis of Akal Takht, this time Barnala refused to accept that punishment. In other words, it can be said that the legal authority remains effective only as long as the people concerned with it; People or followers keep accepting him.

 

 

 

 

, 2) Traditional authority; Jtankajpavidans.Najivatpajal.

 

The traditional power is attained by a person by virtue of occupying a position sanctioned by tradition, it is not related to holding a position under statutory rules. Explaining this form of authority according to Weber, Raymond Ayroon has written that “Traditional authority is that authority which is based on the belief of a tradition of specific qualities and which has been accepted by the people for a long time.” People who are blessed with such power use it because of their ancestral or genetic status. The main feature of traditional authority is that it gives more autocratic and exclusive authority to a person to get its orders obeyed. The people who act according to the orders of the traditional authority are its ‘subjects’. Generally these people have a feeling of reverence for the traditional authority. They believe that some divine qualities are included in the person who has authority over the traditional authority, and therefore, in any case, his commandments should not be violated. For example, the caste panchayats found in the villages of India until recently, illustrate this form of power. Though caste panchayats did not have any statutory authority, their decisions were accepted by the panch. It was accepted as a judgment given by God. Weber has explained the nature of traditional authority with the help of its three main forms. These can be accepted as the main examples of traditional authority.

 

 

, (a) The first form of traditional authority was the school. It is seen in the tradition of the father. Societies in which joint family or similar. There are similar families, there the entire power of the family is the father; lies in the hands of the doer. The orders given by him to different members of the family to act and behave in a particular way do not have the power of any law behind them, but this power is determined by tradition.

, b) Ancestral rule is another example of traditional authority according to A. Weber. Until recently, a clear form of patrilineal rule was found in most of the theocratic societies. Under this, the entire power of the state remains concentrated in the hands of one person and after his death, this power automatically goes to his eldest son or successor. This authority is of autocratic nature. A paternal ruler usually follows only those rules which are supposed to support his liberty. He himself chooses his office bearers and distributes power among different classes of people from the point of view of how reliable and loyal they are to the ruler. This means that the people who are relatives or favored by the ruler, this authority is implemented through them only.

, c) According to Weber, the third form of power is found in the form of a feudal government, which is a modified form of ancestral rule. a contract under it; Under Bvadjatambaja, the power of the ancestral ruler is divided among his vassals who hold authority over different regions. To each Samant his . He gets the right to execute the orders in his area in the same way as a paternal ruler can compel his entire subjects to follow the orders. This is the special grace of the feudal ruler. be eligible

They are there and under a certain tradition they continue to pay taxes and gifts to the ruler. It is clear that this form of traditional authority is not well defined and neither are the rights of such authority. Any curb can be placed on the area.

 

 

 

 

 

, 3) miraculous power; Bintpeunjpb.Najivatpjal

 

According to Waver, miraculous power is related to the power of a person who has the ability to influence others through his special qualities. It is clear that such authority is determined neither by statutory rules nor by tradition. The basis of this is some such miraculous actions, by demonstrating which any person can claim power. In other words, a prophet, a hero, a tantrik or a popular leader who, with the help of his miracles, acquires the legal power to command the common people, is called a miraculous power. Such a person can use miraculous power only when he proves or at least people start to believe that he has the ability to perform a special miracle due to some magical power, divine power or some phenomenal quality. The person who obeys the commands of a miraculous power is his ‘disciple’ or ‘follower’. These followers do not believe in the authority of that leader because of the rules prescribed by any law or a special tradition, but because of his personal qualities, they follow his orders. Under miraculous power, various officials are not selected on the basis of their ability or efficiency, but on the basis of their loyalty and devotion to the person in power. Waver called such office-bearers as ‘disciple officers’; Where is it? The determination of the actions of such officials and their power to give orders is determined by the will of the miraculous leader.

The special thing is that the officers working under such a leader are neither bound by any rules nor laws, rather the will of the leader influences their conduct. Miraculous power may be in any form, it gives time to the people who believe in it. At times it makes us feel that without it no success can be achieved. Weber says that a charismatic leader loses his authority whenever he cannot prove his miracle in the eyes of his disciples. With reference to the characteristics of miraculous power by Dewar, Raymond Airon has presented Lenin’s leadership in Russia as an example of miraculous power. You say that the power that Lenin exercised there at the time of the Russian Revolution was neither based on the rationality of laws nor on age-old Russian traditions. He established his miraculous power on the basis of his impressive personality and special qualities. , Thus it is clear that miraculous power is completely personal. The equanimous entity is believed to have special qualities, divine powers or unusual abilities in a person. One of the main features of this power is that its duration is not very long. If such power is not converted into traditional power or legal power, then it can be expected to end after some time.

 

Through the above concept of power, Weber also clarified the fact that these different forms of power in human history; Jlchme ddh one. One is not completely different from the other, but its form is the same in different societies. There is a lot being mixed with others. Giving this example, Weber told that the authority of the Queen of England is generally seen as a traditional authority, while the reality is that it also includes the elements of legal authority. The reason for this is that the post of the Queen of England is related to an ancestral tradition, but even there the public. The laws made by the representatives are implemented only in the name of the Queen. If seen in the context of India, a mixture of elements of constitutional authority and traditional authority is seen in the politics here as well. Out of the 44 years of Indian politics after independence, if we exclude those six years in which Lal Bahadur Shastri and non-Congress Prime Minister were in power, then for the remaining 38 years, the legal power here remained confined to the Nehru family. As a result of this , many features in the current politics of India match with the features of ancestral rule . Similar are seen. According to Weber, the second thing is that with the change in the behavior related to the legitimate rules on which the system of power is based, there is a possibility of change in the form of power. This means that the different types of existence are not forms that never change. For example, a charismatic leader never wants to work by being bound by traditional rules or any law. Even after this, his followers keep trying indirectly that despite the unprecedented capabilities of the leader, they must maintain their independent existence in some way or the other. As a result, as soon as the followers get an opportunity, they prove the miracle of their leader to be illusory and start giving importance to many traditions and rules. As a result, a particular system of power begins to transform into another system. Even after this, Weber accepted that

It is not always necessary to change one type of power into another in different circumstances. This is because every system of power has some internal defense . There are shields that work to maintain its effect. Change happens only when rulers belonging to a particular system start disregarding the norms on the basis of which they got power. For example, under a legal authority, if the people who nurture the law start using the laws in their own interest, then such authority cannot remain stable for a long time. Similarly, under the traditional authority, if the ruler starts behaving in an autocratic manner by disregarding the traditions, then the people’s faith will end in him. Weber says that in different eras of history, there has been change in different forms or systems of power only because the rulers have been trying to fulfill personal interests by violating the limits of their power. Thus, while it is always necessary to keep the source of power in mind, it is equally important to keep in mind that power is a comparative and changeable form.