The phrase maan jaisi riyasat (mother-like state) reflects a paternalistic view of the state, portraying it as an institution that nurtures, protects and prioritises the welfare of its people. However, this is not the conclusion one reaches following a critical examination of the institution through the lenses of either Western or Eastern philosophical tradition.

The state frequently operates as an extractive and controlling force, working against the interests of the majority.

In post-colonial contexts, the state’s role 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 instrument of the elite, enforcing domination without hegemony.

Colonialism and various neo-colonial structures have deeply influenced state mechanisms. The state was historically created not to serve the people but to enforce the will of colonial powers. It functioned as an apparatus for extraction, exploiting both material resources and human labour for the benefit of the colonial rulers. It played a key role in maintaining the subjugation of indigenous populations to foreign elites, prioritising the interests of colonisers over the welfare of the governed. This extractive nature persisted after the formal end of colonial governance.

Many newly independent nations inherited state structures grounded in colonial systems of domination. Through economic dependency, political control and military influence, neo-colonialism ensured that the state continued to serve the interests of a global elite rather than its people.

In countries having hybrid regimes, the state oscillates between democratic forms and authoritarian practices. Its tilt towards authoritarianism challenges the paternalistic view of the state as a caring mother. Rather than acting as a protector of its citizens, the state often acts as an oppressor, curbing political freedoms, stifling dissent and consolidating power in the hands of a few.

The hybrid regime 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, perpetuates a system of governance that undermines the very notion of the state as a benevolent protector.

Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony provides a valuable framework for understanding the relationship between the state and the people. Gramsci argued that in a capitalist society, the ruling class maintains its power not solely through coercion, but through consent — through the establishment of a cultural and ideological dominance that shapes people’s beliefs and values. This is what he referred to as hegemony. However, in many contexts, particularly post-colonial ones, such hegemony is often absent.

The state, while appearing to be a benevolent force, does not operate through consensus but through domination without hegemony. In these contexts, the state is unable to secure the ideological consent of the people. Instead, it relies on brute force, coercion and a system of control to maintain its power. This kind of domination does not seek to integrate people into the political system through consent and leadership. Rather, it forces them into submission by stifling dissent, limiting agency and perpetuating inequality.

The maan jaisi riyasat in such a context is, therefore, an oxymoron because it assumes legitimacy through consent and paternalistic care, whereas the state in practice often operates as a system of domination that disregards the interests and well-being of the majority.

Michel Foucault’s work on power offers another critical 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 idea of bio-power — the regulation of populations through institutions such as the state, the military, healthcare and education — illustrates how the state does not merely protect citizens but also manages and controls them. The state acts as a mechanism for disciplining individuals, shaping behaviours 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 categorises, normalises and controls populations. The idea that the state is like a mother, incapable of harming its citizens, ignores the reality that the state often harms its citizens through surveillance, repression and regulation of their lives.

We can also see critiques of the idealised notion of the state as a benevolent protector in the Eastern philosophical traditions. In the Bhagavad Gita, for example, the state is not presented as a nurturing or benevolent entity but as a tool for upholding order. The relationship between the ruler and the ruled is understood in terms of duty (dharma), not paternalism. The king, or the state, is tasked with
maintaining dharma (righteous order) and ensuring justice, which does not necessarily equate to care for the people in the sense implied by the notion of a mother-like state.

In Confucian thought, the state is seen as a moral institution that is supposed to reflect the virtues of the ruler. While the ruler is expected to act in accordance with benevolent principles, Confucianism recognises the potential for rulers to become corrupt or tyrannical. The notion that the state is inherently protective or nurturing is contested by Confucian teachings, which acknowledge that the state’s actions can harm the people if the rulers are not virtuous and just.

In Islamic thought, the role of the state is not one of absolute protection or paternalism. Islamic governance, as described in classical texts, emphasies justice (adalah) and the welfare of the people, but it also acknowledges the potential for oppression when rulers deviate from Islamic principles. The Quran and Hadith both emphasise the importance of just leadership, with several verses condemning oppression and highlighting the responsibility of rulers to protect their citizens’ rights.

The Islamic concept of the riyasat (state) challenges the idea of state as an omnipotent entity that is beyond accountability. The state’s role, as understood in traditional Islamic thought, is not to dominate or control, but to provide just governance. Several hadiths, such as “The best of leaders are those whom you love and who love you, and you pray for them and they pray for you” (Sahih Muslim), reflect the reciprocal relationship between the rulers and citizens, where love, justice and mutual respect are central to the state-citizen dynamic.

When a state tilts towards authoritarianism, it betrays these Islamic ideals, acting in opposition to the welfare of the people and undermining the state’s moral legitimacy.

The phrase maan jaisi riyasat reflects a deeply ingrained belief in the benevolence of the state that has been perpetuated through cultural and political narratives. However, this belief is an illusion; a fallacy that distorts the reality of state power. The state, as analysed through either Western or Eastern thought, is often an instrument of domination, extraction and control, rather than a nurturing force that serves the needs of the people.

By examining the state through the critical lenses of Gramsci, Foucault and post-colonial theory, we can begin to understand how the state serves the interests of elites and reinforces systems of oppression. The belief that the state is inherently benevolent and protective is a dangerous delusion, one that must be disabused to challenge the structures of power that perpetuate inequality and injustice.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.