Berlin defines political obligation as the duty incumbent on any person(s) to consensually submit to a legitimate political authority. He regards political obligation as the most fundamental of all political questions, since there has to be a justification as to why one should willingly obey the state and the law. Every human being today is a member of a state and is subject to political obligation of due to the omnipresence of the modern nation state. However, there are a few select individuals, e.g. stateless persons, refugees, diplomats, and officials of international organizations, who are free from political obligation and enjoy different schedules of entitlements, immunities and responsibilities. This is a double-edged sword though, as these individuals cannot participate in the political process of the country in which they are currently residing as a special category. Political obligation consists of three important aspects: (1) the identifiable authority to which political obligation is rendered, (2) the extent of political obligation and (3) the basis of political obligation. The first aspect talks about the origins of the political authority to which the citizen owes political obligation. If a person is supposed to do or abstain from doing a certain thing, a higher authority should be in place which can ensure that he does or does not do that thing. Political authority is usually interpreted as the State or the government and its representatives. However, a person’s political obligation is linked to citizenship of a state, which means a foreigner will have the same legal obligation and protection that a citizen is under but without any of the political rights the citizen enjoys. According to the second aspect, the state has the sole right to make and enforce laws and demand minimum political obligation. This implies that the citizen has to obey all the laws and cannot be selective in this aspect. Besides obligation to obedience, a person also has an obligation of civility, namely to support and sustain the basic institutions of the state by participation, e.g. voting, jury service and military duty. In some countries voting and military duty are compulsory. Liberal political theorists contend that a person’s political obligations are decisively limited. According to them, a person’s political obligation is just one of many other obligations to society such as familial, professional and religious obligations. Political obligation became central to political theory only since the sixteenth century. This is what the third aspect deals with. Before the sixteenth century, a person’s political obligation was considered as something that was inherited or was the will of God. Modern political theory, however, rejects this notion of compulsory acceptance of political authority and accepts that all citizens voluntarily assume what they consider valid obligations. The reasons people willingly incur these obligations are twofold. The first reason is self-interest. The state provides several essential services like physical safety, security of property or commodious living. Secondly, the realization that certain basic moral duties like securing justice or maximising happiness may not be possible without political authority. Liberal theory that regards obligation to be self-assumed is reinforced by a powerful, consistent and clear tendency towards the ideal of radical voluntarism – that authority to be legitimate must not be simply accepted but must be created by the individuals who will it. This formed the basis of the doctrine of the social contract and in its response arose various alternatives like the utilitarian, idealist, democratic, socialist and anarchist alternatives detailing different views and basis of political obligation. During the last few centuries, the meaning and content of political obligation have changed drastically. With larger citizen participation and increasing democratization, there has been an increase in citizen demand for state action which correspondingly altered the meaning of political obligation for people. Divine Right Theory In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the divine right of Kings was used to explain authority and obligation. According to the theory of divine right of Kings, the authority of a sovereign is derived from God; hence obedience to the state is as imperative as obedience to God. Ancient Indian political thought had the seeds of the theory. This theory was developed in Europe during the ascendancy of monarchy. The best known philosopher of this theory was Robert Filmer (1588-1653). According to Filmer, the power of the Monarch is a type of paternal authority or rather; all kings are the direct descendants of Adam. This was in response to a constitutional crisis in England between the Royalists and the parliamentarians. According to Filmer, the Kings inherit Adam’s original authority as the father of humankind. In the process, he t