Burke was born in 1729 CE, and Paine was born in 1737 CE. Burke was Irish, Paine was English. They both supported the American Revolution; that is to say opposed the English parliament and its monarch on the matter. If you remember our early episodes in this series, one of the root causes for the American revolution was Britain demanding more money from its American colonies to make up for the losses incurred in its involvement in the Seven Years war. Burke and Paine was against this new taxation on the colonies. Well, then they were friends!

The French also supported the American revolution, you see. They had lost dearly in the Seven Years war, and sought revenge against their arch rivals, the British. The bitter resentment was carried on until they helped the American colonies defeat the British in the revolution. But the moral victory defeated them materially. The war drove the French Kingdom to bankruptcy. One of the root causes for the French revolution was the Monarch and his ancien regime trying to recover the losses by taxing its populace further.

Thomas Paine fully supported the French Revolution. In fact, he was an advisor to the French National Assembly when they were drafting the new Constitution.

Edmund Burke did not know how to react initially to the revolution. In August 1789, Burke wrote:

"England gazing with astonishment at a French struggle for liberty and not knowing whether to blame or applaud! The thing indeed, thought I thought I saw something like it in progress for several years, has still something in it paradoxical and mysterious. The spirit it is impossible not to admire; but the old Parisian ferocity has broken out in a shocking manner"

But, in October 1789, when a crowd of Parisian women marched on Versailles to compel King Louis XVI to return to Paris, Burke lost it. That event took him to his boiling point. Burke began to abhor the revolution. So he voiced and printed words against the revolution and its principles, to which Paine replied vehemently. And they became bitter rivals.

Edmund Burke is considered as the founder or father of conservatism, especially in Britain. In 1790, he registered his reaction to the revolution in France by publishing a pamphlet titled, “Reflections on the Revolution in France, and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to That Event: In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris.” The rather long title was then trimmed to the now popular "Reflections on the Revolution in France".

The 'Certain societies' mentioned in the original title was referring to a revolutionary society in England which supported Protestantism as the state religion. This was a peaceful society, not as revolutionary as its name suggests. The name rather alludes to its admiration of the "Glorious Revolution" in England in 1688, which deposed the Catholic monarch and replaced him with a Protestant monarch, thus establishing the victory of parliament over the crown. The society was also happy about the revolution in France, and supported the National Assembly. Not just England, but every other neighbouring country was afraid of the contagious revolution in France spreading to their land. One has to presume that Burke was worried too. He directly attacked the revolutionary society in England, the French National Assembly, and the enlightenment ideas of liberty, natural rights and Constitution. Plus, the wound left by the Gordon riots in London in 1780, an attack on the Catholics, must have still been fresh in Burke's mind.

I present a few passages from Burke's reflection on the "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" movement in France, and the forming of a constitution by the National Assembly, nullifying the monarch and his divine authority, He wrote:

"It is known; that armies have hitherto yielded a very precarious and uncertain obedience to any senate, or popular authority; and they will least of all yield it to an assembly which is only to have a continuance of two years. The officers must totally lose the characteristic disposition of military men, if they see with perfect submission and due admiration, the dominion of pleaders; especially when they find that they have a new court to pay to an endless succession of those pleaders; whose military policy, and the genius of whose command, (if they should have any,) must be as uncertain as their duration is transient. In the weakness of one kind of authority, and in the fluctuation of all, the officers of an army will remain for some time mutinous and full of faction, until some popular general, who understands the art of conciliating the soldiery, and who possesses the true spirit of command, shall draw the eyes of all men upon himself. Armies will obey him on his personal account.

A few years later, enter Napoleon Bonaparte!

There is only one comparably Cassandra-like prediction, writes Christopher Hitchens, "that I can call to mind, and that is Rosa Luxemburg’s warning to Lenin that revolution can move swiftly from the dictatorship of a class to the dictatorship of a party, to be followed by the dictatorship of a committee of that party and eventually by the rule of a single man who will soon enough dispense with that committee."

Next passage. Of the then French queen, Burke wrote:

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in,—glittering like the morning-star, full of life, and splendour, and joy. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom."

Of the National Assembly and the constitution, Burke wrote:

"If this monster of a constitution can continue, France will be wholly governed by the agitators in corporations, by societies in the towns formed of directors of assignats and trustees for the sale of church lands, attornies, agents, money-jobbers, speculators, and adventurers, composing an ignoble oligarchy, founded on the destruction of the crown, the church, the nobility, and the people. Here end all the deceitful dreams and visions of the equality and rights of men."

Of the social contract. Burke wrote:

"It becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place."

Now let's listen to Paine's reply.

Thomas Paine's reply to Burke's pamphlet is equally emphatic. The general tone could be sampled in the paragraph below:

"As to the tragic paintings by which Mr. Burke has outraged his own imagination, and seeks to work upon that of his readers, they are very well calculated for theatrical representation, where facts are manufactured for the sake of show, and accommodated to produce, through the weakness of sympathy, a weeping effect. But Mr. Burke should recollect that he is writing history, and not plays, and that his readers will expect truth, and not the spouting rant of high-toned exclamation."

and in the following paragraph as well:

"There is scarcely an epithet of abuse to be found in the English language, with which Mr. Burke has not loaded the French Nation and the National Assembly. Everything which rancour, prejudice, ignorance or knowledge could suggest, is poured forth in the copious fury of near four hundred pages. In the strain and on the plan Mr. Burke was writing, he might have written on to as many thousands. When the tongue or the pen is let loose in a frenzy of passion, it is the man, and not the subject, that becomes exhausted."

I include these to show how vicious ideological battles in writing was back then. Apart from these, most other parts of Paine's reply are rather technical, and it counters almost every major accusation made by Burke. He has defended the revolutionary society of England, and the idea of natural and civil rights which was then zeitgeist. Paine wrote:

"Mr. Burke, on the contrary, denies that such a right exists in the nation, either in whole or in part, or that it exists anywhere; and, what is still more strange and marvellous, he says: "that the people of England utterly disclaim such a right, and that they will resist the practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes." That men should take up arms and spend their lives and fortunes, not to maintain their rights, but to maintain they have not rights, is an entirely new species of discovery, and suited to the paradoxical genius of Mr. Burke."

About Burke's admiration of the queen, and the disappointment in the lost chivalry, Paine replied:

"When we see a man dramatically lamenting in a publication intended to be believed that "The age of chivalry is gone! that The glory of Europe is extinguished for ever! that The unbought grace of life (if anyone knows what it is), the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone!" and all this because the Quixot age of chivalry nonsense is gone, what opinion can we form of his judgement, or what regard can we pay to his facts? In the rhapsody of his imagination he has discovered a world of wind mills, and his sorrows are that there are no Quixots to attack them."

About Burke's notion of a social contract needing to be between the living, dead and the unborn, Paine wrote:

"Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered."

About society, contract and the Constitution, Paine replied:

"In casting our eyes over the world, it is extremely easy to distinguish the governments which have arisen out of society, or out of the social compact, from those which have not; but to place this in a clearer light than what a single glance may afford, it will be proper to take a review of the several sources from which governments have arisen and on which they have been founded. They may be all comprehended under three heads. First, Superstition. Secondly, Power. Thirdly, The common interest of society and the common rights of man. The first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason."

Well, if nothing has had been concluded in over 200 years, it would be hard to conclude anything now. That is the tragedy of social sciences. At any rate, few observations must be made.

1. First, this exchange of words must have unveiled the general political situation of the late 18th century you. Both of them had supporters and followers. It certainly has affected our modern world in many ways
2. Edmund Burke is considered as the founder of conservatism now. Whether he knew it is arguable. I suppose his writings, especially the Reflections on Revolutions has acted as an inspiration in autopsy for the conservatives. It doesn't really help us, in this podcast episode to define Conservatism really. Nevertheless, it is imperative to be aware of his views with all its frailties
3. Burke passage about the French queen might not be palatable for a reader of 21st century, but if you look around to find similarities, find it you might quicker than you would think it might be. Hero worship is still pervasive
4. The most curious comment made by Burke, according to me, the hardest to comprehend is regarding the social contract needing to include the living, dead and the unborn. Perhaps, we are reading it in an entirely different circumstances
5. Burke's triumph is in the Cassandra like prediction of the a powerful military general. That was eerily exact!

6. Thomas Paine is not considered the father of liberalism, but it is impossible to study or analyse the idea of liberty without Paine. It is as simple as that.

   With that, let's move on to the 19th century, where Classical Liberalism and Conservatism took its real shape.

1. Arguably, Christopher Hitchens
2. Reflections on Revolution in France, Edmund Burke
3. Rights of Man, Thomas Paine
4. Common Sense, Thomas Paine.
5. Political Ideologies : An Introduction, Andrew Heywood
6. The French Revolution, William Doyle

Perhaps we could use the classification of society in the middle ages to explain the transition in thought process at each level. We start with land. Lefebvre writes, "Land was virtually the only source of income in an aristocratic world where priests and nobles were royal subjects. The state had all the sovereign powers. The Lords had authority over their own peasants. Serfdom existed in regions of western Europe. Its subjects were bound to the land, which was strictly limited to rights of inheritance. The economy was stagnant. Production was limited by scarcity, rules, and war. People sough assistance and protection of family and communities, and parish. Competition in the market was restricted with controls. Extra work or pro-activeness fetched no reward because the system shackled it. Advertisements were useless, people waited for clients to approach them, and so they sold very little for high prices. Taxes, hierarchy, and authority remained in the society. Along with this the lower classes continued to hold superstitious beliefs in magic, sorcery, astrology, and alchemy."

The bourgeoisie didn't see much hope in this static society. So, they ventured beyond their land.

After the barbarian conquests, Europeans forayed into invasion mode. They travelled far and wide to different continents and brought back all kinds of treasures. The contagious example of material success encouraged all those who judged themselves capable of enjoying rewards offered during this life itself. They returned home rich. Money bought them privileges, and eventually power, and changes followed.

• Each child started to demand their rightful inheritance
• Disintegration of family and traditional groups
• life in a city started sprouting
• members classified based on their residence
• personal mobility
• expanding industry
• improved communication
• adventure, risk and rewards
• A dynamic and unstable society in which power was based on money

It added glamour to this life and obscured the after life.

When science arrived at the scene, the hitherto magical explanation of the universe started to wane, for science's intention was to condense the whole universe to a series of equations, and scientists were becoming increasingly successful at this.

"One of the important innovations in this era" writes Lefebvre, "was the ability to fix positions geographically, which was essential for navigation as well as to the measurement of globe and cartography(that is the art of making maps or charts). New nautical instruments such as the compass, the sextant were invented, and Borda's circle determined latitudes. Construction of the chronometer and maritime clocks and basic establishment of astronomical charts meant that longitudes could be calculated rather than simply estimated. These were revolutionary advances." Science enabled the discovery and control of natural forces.

The scientific worldview drastically changed when the Polish astronomer Nicolas Copernicus claimed that is sun is the centre of the universe, not earth. Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei carried the baton forward. Kepler accepted the Copernican view and improved it by claiming the planetary bodies revolved in ellipses than in circles. He also calculated the speed of this motion. Galileo pointed his telescope at heavens and found interesting phenomena. He also argued against the Aristotelian theory that heavier objects falls faster than lighter ones, saying all bodies will fall towards earth at the same rate if not for the air resistance they feel. He used the language of Mathematics to explain physical things. He also emphasised testing out hypothesis experimentally. The scientific revolution continued with Rene Descartes's in the 17th century with his mechanical philosophy where he explained the physical world in terms of particles interacting and colliding with one another. After Descartes, Issac Newton published the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy in the late 17th century which improved Cartesian theory with great accuracy. His three laws seemed to explain all observable phenomena in the world. He also invented the mathematical technique called Calculus to explain the theory. He was able to prove Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Galileo's law of free fall using his theory. Differential and integral Calculus was developed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in parallel to Newton.

We cannot escape the topic of philosophy when we are trying to answer the question, 'Why'. With Philosophy comes its philosophers, and we are going to have a tryst with some of the philosophers of the age of enlightenment, and dance our way through the major thoughts and ideas of the age. But first, let's address the elephant in the room, God. Omnipotent is the claim, and omnipresent is this mammoth in the history books of philosophy. Pray, we shall dare to seek an explanation of the societal transformation by starting God on the bench. It is thus, with utmost convenience, that we discard the divine intervention in our search for the answer. You see, most of our philosophers were believers and theologians, but please remember that they arrived and departed before Charles Darwin. Fair play to them, there has had been a Galapagos sized gap in their head that had to be filled, which they did, with god, with questions about body and mind, liberty, equality, justice, morality, ethics, social contract, natural rights, happiness, scientific rationalism, physics, metaphysics, economic prosperity, free markets and so on and so forth.

We had a brief brushing with physics in the previous section, and now, to metaphysics. It seems meta in ancient Greek meant ‘after’. So ‘metaphysics’, yes…, after physics. Physics is about things that change; the metaphysics is about things that don’t change. So, natural science investigates things in this world or universe which tend to change or move or transform, which can be sensed, observed, experimented upon, or experienced, whereas, metaphysics transcends experience. It concerns mind where physics is concerned with body. And that is philosophy.

The two dominant branches of western philosophy during the age of enlightenment are called the Empiricism and Rationalism. Interestingly, there is an intersection of these two schools of thought and further advancement of western philosophy from that point. Empiricism comes from empeiria meaning "experience; mere experience or practice without knowledge. Rationalism, on the other hand comes from reason. Either way, the two questions that really matters in political philosophy are: 'Who gets what', and 'says who'? The first is about the distribution of goods, and of rights and liberties. The second question concerns the distribution of Political power. One task for the political philosopher is to determine the correct balance between autonomy and authority.

Of the two major factions or western philosophy, Empiricism began with Francis Bacon(1561-1626). 'Knowledge is power', is his famous dictum. He emphasised on the need for seeking evidence to prove things. A methodical approach to the investigation of the nature and limits of human mind and then to draw consequences for how we should regulate our beliefs and actions. Empiricists believed that an idea in the mind that can be traced back to some particular experience. Ideas come from senses or sense-impressions of the past.

Rene Descartes(1596-1650), is believed to be the originator of rationalism. 'I think, therefore I am', is his famous dictum. Rationalists believed that ideas are innate, it came from within. They used deductive reasoning to explain things using axioms as the premise, and deduction as the method to derive conclusions.

Before we go any further, a friendly reminder on why people had to think about these things. We have already touched upon the way of life in the ancien regime, of religious dogmas, of superstitious beliefs in magic, sorcery, astrology, and alchemy. The intellectual exercises of the age of enlightenment were not merely a departure from the status quo, but a discontinuity in the way of life itself. There was a break in the continuity of thoughts and debates from the medieval ages. Ernst Cassirer has some interesting observations in his book 'The myth of the state' where he says "All the progress made by the Renaissance and the Reformation were counterbalanced by the loss of unity and inner harmony of the medieval culture, especially ethical foundation of the medieval civilization was seriously affected. The heliocentric system deprived man of his privileged condition. He became, as it were, an exile in the infinite universe. The cracks formed in Christianity were irreparable. Only Reason, which is autonomous and self-dependent could bring back the ethics and harmony."

Cassirer also writes that political theories of the age of enlightenment was a rejuvenation of Stoic ideas. Stoicism is from the Greek and Roman period which is capsuled in the phrase 'Virtue is its own reward'. Morality and happiness is derived from following virtues like wisdom, courage, controlling emotions, justice, and living in accordance with nature. All these political theories have a common metaphysical background than a theological one. This is backed by mathematics and reasoning.

In a way, writes Milan Zafirovski in his book The Enlightenment and Its Effects on Modern Society, "the Enlightenment operates as the composite process of intellectual destruction and deconstruction of the values and institutions of the ancien regime as a total social system and of creation or projection of those of a new society. The inner logic, essential process, and ultimate outcome of the Enlightenment are the destruction of old oppressive, theocratic, irrational, and inhumane social values and institutions, and the creation of new democratic, secular, rational, and humane ones through human reason or, as Immanuel Kant put it, “dare to think.”

The famous words from American Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed", are the effects of these ideas. That was the noticeable change; Ideas started to have consequences. Revolutions are the prime examples of that. I think with the formation of parliaments, and republics in Europe and North America, and the social revolution of France, we witnessed a reciprocity of thoughts and actions. Most of these ideas were repeated from the past, but now these ideas were forged into weapons. The attack became direct. Their is no veiled disguise or use of abstract terms anymore. Straight to the point. Ecrasez l'infâme, said Voltaire, "Crush the loathsome thing", and he was referring to the Roman Catholic Church.

With that we move on to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) is most famous for his book Leviathan, in which he invites the reader to travel to a hypothetical world where there is no civilisation or societies. It is called the state of nature. In the state of nature there are no rules, or morals, or ethics attached to the people. The question is then to ask how and why did that change? It is a thought experiment similar to parents reprimanding children for wasting food by saying, 'you will understand the value of it in its absence'.

Hobbes was rather pessimistic about life of human in the state of nature. He was inspired by Galileo's principle of conservation of motion, that is things will remain in motion unless acted upon by a force. Hobbes used this premise in a social context and put forth the idea of life is always in motion, and never without felicity. Felicity means the continuous success in achieving the objects of desire. Felicity, when combined with the scarcity of resources in the world would cause conflicts, which will eventually turn into war. He further argues that when people acquire possessions, they acquire fear as well. They will try to protect their possessions from thieves and invaders, and thus are constantly on guard. Either that, or they are just afraid of a preemptive, unprovoked attack. Hobbes also assumes that human beings are equal by nature. So he says, any human being can kill another either by brute strength, or by technique or weapons, or forming a team against another. In his explanation, the power that someone possesses today is a means to obtain some future good for themselves. In other words, power today helps to achieve desires of the future, so people will always seek power over others. Hence, in the state of nature nothing can be unjust, every person has the liberty to act as they think fit to preserve their 'right of nature', so there is no place or reason for morality. Hobbes's solution is to have a sovereign who would put laws in place and punish people who wouldn't obey those.

Paraphrasing his famous paragraph from Leviathan,

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them with all. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continue all in fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man…, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

John Locke(1632-1704) disagreed with Hobbes's idea in many parts, but Locke's counter arguments had God factor in it as the reason why no one has natural right to harm another in his life. Interestingly, Locke says that in the state of nature, there will be a natural right held by each to punish those who harm another person's life, liberty or property. Right to punish is seen different from the right to self defence, which is claimed as a right by Hobbes. Locke thinks that moral law-abiding citizens will come together with the victim to bring the villain to justice. One key difference is that Locke thinks there will be no deep scarcity of goods in the world.

Locke assumes that human beings are naturally free, equal, and independent. This means that they are not naturally under the authority of any other person. Accordingly, Locke concluded that the only way of coming under another person's authority was to give that person your consent punishment. This holds, for Locke, whether the person claiming authority is another private individual or the sovereign. Thus the sovereign, who claims authority over you, has no right to that authority unless you have voluntarily put yourself in this position through your own consent.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau(1712-1778) agrees with Locke about Hobbes being wrong of extreme scarcity in the state of nature, but disagrees about the ideas of morality as the motivation for goodness in the state of nature. Instead he proposes natural pity or compassion as the element that will rescue humanity from killing each other.

Essentially, for the social contract theorists after Hobbes, the state is justified if, but only if, every individual over which it claims authority has consented. Consent, that is keyword. That's probably what caused the discontinuity in the hitherto way of life. Well, I would like to leave you with few questions:

• Can you think of life in the state of nature if you were in it?
• What are your natural rights?
• What are you thoughts on possessions?
• What binds an individual to a state?
• Do you give consent?

The intention of this episode is to introduce the alternate thoughts before the French Revolution which could have been its possible causation. We have mentioned a few names, and omitted many more. But names are not interesting to us, it's the ideas and stories that enthral us. There is more to cover from this part of history, but an episode's space is rather constrained. It's perhaps a travesty to omit The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli(1469-1527) while discussing alternate thoughts and ideas. Enlightened despotism or absolutism was also skipped. The idea where monarch agrees that royal power does not come from divine right but from a social contract whereby a despot was entrusted with the power to govern through a social contract in lieu of any other governments. We didn't speak much about collection of knowledge in Encyclopedia, which happened in this era. The original feminist Mary Wollstonecraft lived in this era. Much, much more.

In the next episode we discuss the terminologies in Political Ideologies, but for now, I must leave you and this episode with the following quote by the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant, about the French Revolution:

"Such an event," he said, does not consist in important deeds or misdeeds of men, whereby, what had been great, became little among men, or what had been little, became great, and . . . old glorious political edifices disappeared, whereas, in their stead, other ones grew out of the ground. No; nothing of the kind! … The revolution of an ingenious people which we have lived to see, may succeed or fail. It may be filled with such calamities and atrocities that a righteous man, even if he could be sure to carry it out luckily, never would decide to repeat the experiment at such a high price. In spite of all this such a revolution finds, in the minds of all spectators, a sympathy very near to enthusiasm. . . . Such a phenomenon in the history of mankind can never be forgotten; because it proves that in human nature there exists an inclination and disposition to the better which no politician ever could have been able to predict by summing up the course of former events."

Our story begins in 18th century of the Common Era.

France's attempt to remain a global super force meant waging war with other kingdoms. They fought all over the world, at both land and the sea, in America, in Asia, and in native Europe. Engaging in relentless war means destruction; destruction calls for rebuilding; rebuilding costs money. During hard times, money demands either financial discipline or bankruptcy. For France, it was the latter. They were running out of money.

How did the French fund these wars in the first place? Well, the Finance minister borrowed money from Freemason banks and wealthy individual financiers of Europe. Wait, was there a system of government? Yes! It is what we now call the ancien regime. Under ancien regime the French society was then classified into three orders: The nobles(wealthy and powerful), The clergy(God people), and the Third Estate, i.e. everyone else. <beat> Geographically, France was divided into provinces, and there were courts or parlements for each province. The parlements were judicial bodies with around 1100 judges nationwide. The members of the parlements were aristocrats or nobles who had bought or inherited their offices, and were independent of the king. They wielded decision making powers on a wide range of subjects. Apart from this, the king had his ministers to take care of the kingdom's affairs. Okay, back to funding wars. For France, supporting the American war of Independence to defeat the British was dear. They had availed loans to enable the military, and borrowed even more money to pay off the arrears. <beat> Such was the deficit in August 1786, the Finance minister sent a letter to the king mentioning the need for a state reform. It was first of its kind act for France. Things turned worse in the following year; so much that in March 1788 the first budget of the old regime was needed to be drafted. Oddly enough, this was also the last budget of the old regime. It estimated a 20% deficit at 126 million livres. More than half of the expenditures were attributed to paying debts alone. <beat> The taxes in the country was already high, so raising taxes further to clear the arrears was out of the question. There existed a solution to the problem though, that is to bring equality of taxation for different classes of people and provinces of the country. <beat> And that's how it all began!

Shall we move on from the state of economics to the state of people? French revolution could be broadly divided into three stages. The Aristocratic revolution, the Bourgeoisie revolution, and the Popular revolution. We shall begin with the Aristocracy's quarrel, that is the Nobles' and Clergy's quarrel with their king.

At the verge of bankruptcy, the finance minister proposed new measures to raise funds. This included:

1. A direct land tax upon all landowners without any exception
2. Other taxes to be shared out without distinction as to order or class
3. Freeing the grain trade from all controls, by abolishing internal customs barriers
4. Asking clergy to clear its debt by selling the Church's manorial rights

The good minister thought that financial stability would strengthen his king's royal power, and reduce the opposition from parlements. The King Louis VI was a weak monarch; <beat> he had very little power and control over the country's affairs. He was considered almost a laughing stock of his courtiers and all those who had heard the stories. Aware of this status, the finance minister used indirect methods to get the tax reforms done. He convoked a meeting with the representatives of aristocrats and the clergy, also known as the Assembly of Notables to discuss the reforms. He expected the Notables to agree to the changes because of the economic condition of their kingdom. But this move backfired, as it amplified the frailties of the king, and it angered the Notables even more, as they thought it was an attack on their powers and rights. They rejected the proposal and after some internal politics the finance minster was dismissed. The replacement minister soothed the aristocracy by retracting the proposal, and instead offered to increase the stamp duty. But the Notables and the parlements rejected the new tax proposal as well, because this decision was not in their power, but was to be made by the wider group called Estates-General or the States-General representatives of France.

The debt remained, and the new finance minister was now desperate to raise money. Uncertain of the support from the parlements and aristocracy, he had the King pass an edict as a royal order superseding any opposition. Nevertheless, opposition duly came from a duke, and the duke was exiled by the King in retaliation. The parlements and lower tribunals and the aristocrats promptly protested, which turned violent at places. Tit for tat continued as the King started showing hints of despotism. The treasury was almost empty at this point amidst the mayhem, and the King finally gave away and dismissed the Finance minister again. The consensus pointed to the convocation of Estates-General for any tax related decision making. Like before, that is in 1614, the convocation was to have three orders representing the classification of the French society; The clergy, The nobles, and the Third Estate.

What you have heard until now is the revolution that happened in the background. The Aristocratic Revolution! The Nobles and Clergy against the monarch. The second part, which you are about to hear is called the Bourgeoisie Revolution.

The Third Estate, that is everyone else also contained the bourgeoisie. We have spoken a great deal about the rise of the middle class, i.e. the bourgeoisie in the previous episode. The news of gathering of the Estates-General sent tremors of excitement through the members of the Third Estate. Until then, they have had not seen much need for opposing the two classes above them. Suddenly the mood shifted. Many associations sprung up in this time - academies, agricultural societies, philanthropic groups, reading circles. They sought equality in the society thorough arguments of reason and natural right. Equality of taxation, and voting by heads rather than order was their major demands. Of course, the burden of the proposed new taxes fell disproportionately on the shoulders of third estate, when compared to the clergy and the nobles. Meanwhile the Nobles and the Clergy assured of their birth and divine rights, demanded a vote at the this meeting. Since Estates-General voted by order than by head, any two estates could outvote a third. This arrangement naturally favoured the upper classes. <beat> The mood of aristocracy during the French revolution is captured in this extract of a letter sent to the king by the royal princes.

Estates-General. France was all set for the rendezvous. A hotel was arranged for the meetings of the clergy and the nobility. A big national hall was arranged for the third estate to meet. All party meetings were to be held in a large room nearby. The nobles and clergy dressed in full regalia were seated on elevated platforms, whereas the third estate representatives dressed in black were seated on chairs at the floor level. On 5th May 1789, the proceedings began with a brief speech by the king. Then the finance minister harangued the audience, speaking at length about the financial situation with all sorts of boring details. He mentioned the proposed improvements of the situation, but omitted the subject of constitutional reforms, which everyone was desperate to hear. But he mentioned the voting would happen by order as before. There were serious opposition to this, but at that time the representatives didn't know each other well, so they proceeded with caution, and a delaying tactic was used. Stalemate continued where each order discussed further action in their allocated places. At the beginning, the Third Estate had taken a new name for itself; communes or, Commons. Not many knew that word evoked a vague memory of popular resistance to the feudal lords. For the Commons, they simply refused to be relegated to the third rank.

Few days later, the nobility, strong on its belief, announced themselves as a separate order. The Clergy meanwhile was in trouble because a large proportion of the parish church or the district church priests, supported the Commons. The bishops sensed imminent defection of the parish priests. So they requested the king to intervene. The King asked the conferences to be resumed at the common place, in the presence of his ministers. The finance minister further said that if no agreement could be reached, then the king's decision would be final. This put the Commons in a difficult position, but ironically the nobility rejected that royal arbitration proposal.

The Commons now invited privileged members to join them. Many parish priests did, but not one noble. With the new members the Third Estate's name was again changed to National Assembly. They demanded that all three classes be merged and voting shall be done by heads instead of order. They further claimed the power to consent to taxation. The nobility now ended their resistance towards the king and begged him to put the Third Estate back in line. But by now the majority of the clergy declared in favour of merging the three orders. Finally the finance minister came out and proposed equality of taxation and voting by heads. The King still hesitated. One fine day, the National Assembly, formerly known as the Commons, formerly known as the Third Estate discovered that the national hall where they met regularly to discuss their affairs was closed without any notice or warning. Certainly not defeated yet, they immediately convened in a Tennis court nearby, and took an oath to give France a constitution.

The king now disregarding his Finance minister, came up with his own declarations guaranteeing a constitutional system, civil liberty etc, but equality of taxation and voting by head was omitted. He then dismissed the assembly, but the members of National Assembly did not move. They said: "We will not stir from our seats unless forced by bayonets." Following this, many nobles also joined the commons, and the king eventually gave away and asked others to follow the suit. The legal, peaceful revolution of the bourgeoisie appeared victorious at this point. The nobles considered this as a humiliation, albeit not accepting defeat. The king on the other hand saw the members of National Assembly as rebels. First step, they had to get rid of the Finance minister who had supported the National Assembly's cause. He was dismissed arbitrarily and exiled. The bourgeoisie revolution seemed lost, but they were saved <beat> by the people, the proletarians, the peasants. That is the third part of the French Revolution, the Popular revolution!

We hope to talk more about the economic crisis and its effect in a later episode.

For the lower classes, the peasants and artisans the crisis plus the recent crop failure meant hunger and poverty. The hammer-crush burden of the nation's taxes fell on their thin shoulders. Bread was their staple, and it's prices kept increasing steadily. The old Finance minister had ordered large purchases from abroad, and labour camps were setup for distributing food. People, especially in the countryside were driven into desperation by the active tax collectors. The masses had to pay taxes, both direct and indirect, and thus pay for their own oppression. In all these the nobles and monarchy enjoyed their pomp and luxury. The hungry peasants of France were asked to eat grass by a governor. There were millions of professional beggars in France then. But the news of Estates-General kindled hope, a vision of future in them, especially since it had only happened two centuries ago. They thought, since the king consulted his people, he pitied their plight, writes Lefebvre. The great hope also inflamed fearful passions. The Third Estate was convinced that the nobles would stubbornly defend their privileges. The villagers thought the nobles would crush them using any measures. Foreign powers would be called to help put down the villagers. Meanwhile, in the background the dismissal of the good finance minister was seen as an act of aristocratic conspiracy. So they thought they should fight, taking up arms, releasing prisoners and recruiting them, forming their own army against the nobles. The king and the courts thought they should react to this social hullaballoo to keep things under control. Suddenly the capital city was filled with 20000 soldiers, much of them were foreign mercenary troops. That's that! When a German troop tried to disperse crowd in Paris, the hungry citizens decided to act, and French guards and military decided to help the people. They started ransacking the strong points in the city for Guns and food. Storming into a prison, releasing its inmates, and brutally killing the guard commander who had earlier ordered to fire on them, the taking of Bastille was complete. The fall of Bastille.

This quote from William Doyle's French Revolution sums up the episode, "The National Assembly had seized sovereign power in the name of the France Nation. It was the founding act of the French Revolution. If the Nation was sovereign, the king no longer was."

The National Assembly was indirectly helped by the proletarians and the peasants, and other hungry people of France. One thing to remember is that none of these happened overnight. For instance, the convocation of the Estates General was in fact proclaimed in mid 1788, whereas the revolution officially kicked off a year later in 1789. The economic and political crisis is said to have begun at least an year earlier before the proclamation of Estates-General in 1787. It's funny, that Bastille prison only had 7 inmates when it was stormed. It rather shows the fall of a symbol of royal power and pride, and the release of new ideas. The politics of social antagonism which started in Paris have had now spread to the countryside. The whole feeling later was transcended into paranoia of loss. We shall stop our narration of the French revolution here. As they say, the rest is history! That in summary includes:

1. Abolition of privileges
2. October Days, when a group of women marched to Versailles to escort the King to Paris, the epicentre of revolution.
3. Church property nationalised
4. Nobility abolished
5. Parliament abolished
6. Civil constitution for Church, i.e. a common platform for Catholics and Protestants
7. War with neighbours
8. Liberty Fraternity Equality
9. Monarch executed in 1793
10. Massacres
11. Napoleon

and much, much more if you wish to zoom in, enough content for another series. But now we must stop and try to identify links to Political Ideologies.

If we are to believe in contemporary consensus, then "Life began in the ocean". Some creatures subsequently crawled up to the landmass; the reptiles. They had sex, laid eggs, and abandoned them, moved on to next honey moon. Reptile nonchalance is criminally underrated.

Then came the birds. They developed wings and feathers to counter the cold. They had intercourse and more eggs were delivered. But unlike the reptiles, they started caring about their eggs; by keeping them warm under their wings and fuselage. The first act of true selfishness.

Enter mammals, with the hitherto unknown notion of storing eggs inside its own body, inside its own body!. Such was the shock, bird brains accomplished maximum cognisance, and reptiles simply looked up. Mammals also acquired the habit of providing protection and nutrition to the offspring. This created attachment between the youngling and the parent, and it kindled the possibility of learning by imitation. The beginnings of a true social life. As H.G.Wells put it, "A teachable type of life had come into the world". And thus we evolved!

Well, the point is, we evolved as a species from Reptiles and Birds to Mammals, to Hunter Gatherers; we had the early civilizations in Egypt, India, Mesopotamia and China. We had Aryans and Dravidians, the panchayat or the village system, the great thinkers Kong Fu-Tse(Confucious), Lao-Tse and Buddha. We had the kingdom of Persia, the great Greek period, conquests of Alexander, the Mauryan dynasty, Kautilya and Arthashastra, Hellenistic Greece, Ashoka, Rome, Carthage, Caesar, Pompey, Augustus, Cleopatra, Jesus of Nazareth, Constantinople, Holy Roman Church, the Orthodox church, Goths, Huns, Vandals, Islam, Xuanzang(Hsuen Tsang), Charlesmagne, The fall of Rome, Chalukyas, Pallavas, Rashtrakutas, Pandyas, Cholas, Ghazni, Genghis Khan, Marco Polo, Timur, Dark Ages, Crusades, the Renaissance, Age of Science, Age of Enlightenment, Age of Revolution, and then the FRENCH REVOLUTION happened.

1789

The word ideology was coined, literally a new ‘science of ideas’.

Thence we had Marx, Nietzsche, Electricity, Russian Revolution- part 1, WW- part 1, Russian Revolution - part 2, the Great Depression, WW-part 2, Electronics, Computers, Cold War, Globalization, Internet, Climate change, Covid and now, now, as in, the now, now-now, at the moment now.

Now, hopefully that painted a vague timeline of our history. Now, we slip on a banana peel and fall into the coming of ideologies.

It is in Europe where the seeds of modern political ideologies germinated at a time when politics revolved around religion and religion only. The idea of nationality which is obvious these days was rather a niche topic then. War was the most dangerous pandemic in the continent, and religion was the most important cog in the war machine. Christians, other Christians, Muslims, other Muslims endlessly fought and killed to protect their version of the supernatural.