My aim in this chapter is to describe and resist two intellectual tendencies when thinking about how to do political philosophy in India today. The first involves a resistance to ‘Western political thought’, as alien, unfamiliar, or simply inappropriate for thinking about Indian political realities. The estrangement from Western political thought as 'foreign' comes with a concomitant instinct regarding how we should do political theory in India, namely by engaging with Indian thinkers and traditions, both ancient and modern. -/- My (...) primary aim is to resist this division between ‘Western’ and ‘Indian’ thought, particularly when the ‘Indian’ in Indian political thought is taken to be a matter of origins, motivating a search for the indigenous. My own answer to the question posed by the title of the chapter – “What is ‘Indian’ about Indian Political Thought” does not rest upon such a division. Indeed, I believe that there are forms of engagement with Western political thought in an Indian context which are not different in kind from engagement with that thought in a Western context. These engagements are not well described as doing either ‘Western’ or ‘Indian’ political thought. (shrink)

In this note, written for a Book Symposium on Joseph Raz’ 'Morality of Freedom', I examine the extent to which the book succeeds in meeting what he calls the ‘‘revisionist challenge’’ to theories of liberty. Raz locates the revisionist challenge in the work of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls. It has two separable aspects. The first is to deny that liberty is intrinsically valuable, and to claim rather that ‘‘those who wrote and talked of the value of liberty really cherished (...) not liberty but something else,’’ such as justice or equality. The second is to claim that this ‘‘something else’’ need refers not to one particular value, but rather to a ‘‘complex of values’’, such as might be captured by Rawls’ list of the basic liberties. Raz’ ultimate goal is to defend a conception of personal liberty on which is not only intrinsically valuable, but has a unity provided by an underlying 'core' in the ideal of personal autonomy. I suggest that Raz' formulation of the ideal of personal freedom, while undoubtedly impressive, does not fully respond to the revisionist challenge. (shrink)

How should philosophers in India approach the work of John Rawls? I argue against the view that his work should be regarded as exclusively within the domain of 'Western philosophy', which needs some distinctive process of translation and contextualization in order to speak to 'Indian conditions'. I also question the idea that 'Indian political philosophy' should be seen as an autonomous discipline with roots specifically in the Indian past.