smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#Analysing #oxymoron #Political #Economy
The word maan jesi state (mother-like state) reflects a patriarchal view of the state, portraying it as an institution that nurtures, protects and prioritizes the welfare of its people. However, this is not the conclusion that is reached after a critical examination of the institution through the lens of the Western or Eastern philosophical tradition.
The state often acts as an exclusionary and controlling force, working against the interests of the majority.
In postcolonial contexts, the role of the state is far from nurturing. It often serves as a tool of control, manipulation and exploitation. The state, especially in societies shaped by colonial legacies, can be understood as an instrument of elites, enforcing hegemony without hegemony.
The colonial system and various colonial structures have had a profound impact on the state system. The state was historically created not to serve the people but to enforce the will of the colonial powers. It served as an instrument of extraction, exploiting both material resources and human labor for the benefit of colonial rulers. It played a key role in subjugating the local population to foreign aristocracy, prioritizing the interests of the colonized over the welfare of the rulers. This extractive nature continued even after the formal end of colonial rule.
Many newly independent nations inherited state structures based on colonial systems of hegemony. Through economic dependence, political control and military influence, colonialism ensured that the state served the interests of global elites rather than its own people.
In countries with hybrid regimes, the state oscillates between democratic forms and authoritarian practices. Its inclination towards authoritarianism challenges the patriarchal view of the state as a caring mother. Rather than acting as a protector of its citizens, the state often acts as an oppressor, curtailing political freedoms, stifling dissent and consolidating power in the hands of a few.
Hybrid governance creates a paradox: democratic institutions exist in theory but authoritarian practices prevail in practice. The establishment, through its influence over governments and control of key state institutions, maintains a system of governance that undermines the perception of the state as a benevolent protector.
Antonio Gramsci’s concept provides a valuable framework for understanding the relationship between the hegemonic state and the people. Gramsci argued that the ruling class in capitalist society maintains its power not only through coercion but through consent—by establishing a cultural and ideological hegemony that shapes people’s beliefs and values. This is what he called dominance. However, in many contexts, particularly in the post-colonial era, such hegemony is often absent.
The state is seen as a benevolent force, acting not by consensus but by hegemony without hegemony. In these circumstances, the state is unable to obtain the ideological consent of the people. Instead, it relies on brute force, coercion and systems of control to maintain its power. This type of hegemony does not seek to integrate the people into the political system through consent and leadership. Rather, it stifles dissent, limits agency, and perpetuates inequality.
In such contexts a state like Mann is an oxymoron because it derives legitimacy through consent and paternal care, while In practice, the state often functions as a system of hegemony that ignores the interests and well-being of the majority.
Michel Foucault’s work on power offers another important perspective on the relationship between the state and its citizens. For Foucault, power is not simply something that the state holds and exercises over individuals. Rather, power is often diffuse, operating through a network of institutions, norms, and practices. The state, as one of the key institutions in this network, plays a central role in shaping the ways in which individuals are governed and controlled.
Foucault’s theory of biopower—the regulation of population through institutions such as the state, the military, health care, and education—explains how the state not only protects but also manages and controls citizens. The state acts as a mechanism for disciplining individuals, shaping behavior and maintaining social order in ways that often serve the interests of those in power.
Thus, the state is not a nurturing force but a disciplinary institution that classifies, normalizes and controls populations. The idea that the state is like a mother, incapable of harming its citizens, ignores the fact that the state often harms its citizens through surveillance, coercion, and regulation of their lives.
We can also see critiques of the idealistic conception of the state as a welfare protector in Eastern philosophical traditions. In the Bhagavad Gita, for example, the state is not presented as a nurturing or benevolent entity but as an instrument for maintaining order. The relationship between ruler and ruled is understood in terms of duty (dharma), not paternalism. The king, or state, is tasked with upholding dharma (righteous order) and ensuring justice, which is not the same as caring for the people in the sense implied by the concept of a motherly state.
In Confucian thought, the state is seen as a moral institution that reflects the virtues of the ruler. While the ruler is expected to act according to benevolent principles, Confucianism recognizes the potential for rulers to become corrupt or tyrannical. The notion that the state is inherently protective or nurturing runs counter to Confucian teachings, which recognize that state actions can harm the people if the rulers are not virtuous and just.
The role of the state in Islamic thought is not one of absolute protection or paternalism. Islamic governance, as described in classical texts, emphasizes justice (adil) and the welfare of the people, but it also recognizes the possibility of repression when rulers deviate from Islamic principles. Both the Qur’an and the Hadith emphasize the importance of just leadership, with several verses condemning tyranny and highlighting the responsibility of rulers to protect the rights of their citizens.
The Islamic concept of state (Riyast) challenges the notion of the state as an omnipotent entity that is beyond accountability. The role of the state, as understood in traditional Islamic thought, is not to dominate or control, but to provide just governance. Several hadiths, such as “The best leaders are those whom you love and who love you, and you pray for them and they pray for you” (Sahih Muslim), of rulers and citizens. It reflects the interrelationship between, where love, justice and mutual respect are central to the state-citizen dynamic.
When a state leans towards authoritarianism, it betrays these Islamic ideals, works against the welfare of the people and undermines the moral legitimacy of the state.
The phrase Mann-like state reflects a deep-seated belief in the benevolence of the state sustained by cultural and political narratives. However, this belief is an illusion; A misconception that distorts the reality of state power. The state, as analyzed by Western or Eastern thought, is often an instrument of domination, exclusion and control rather than a force that serves the needs of the people.
By examining the state through the critical lens of Gramsci, Foucault, and postcolonial theory, we can begin to understand how the state serves elite interests and reinforces systems of oppression. The belief that the state is inherently benevolent and protective is a dangerous illusion, which must be dismantled to challenge the power structures that perpetuate inequality and injustice.
The author is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Beacon House National University, Lahore.
