H C Singh

Origin Of Two Nation Theory

British and Syed Ahmed Khan were co-founder of Pakistan as British preferred to rule by the policy of Divide and Rule, So they encouraged men like Sir Syed who was just a sub-judge but well versed in English and Knighted by British Government on the obvious recommendation of British rulers of India, to perpetuate and strengthen two nation theory initiated by their policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ ie divide Hindu’s and Muslims so that they unitedly do not create problem for British rulers demanding, in due course, independence, but instead fight among themselves.
I reproduce below extracts from Speech of Sri Syed Ahmed from the book ‘Great Speeches of Modern India’ by R. Mukherjee.
This fiery speech was delivered by Syed Ahmed in Meerut in 1888, just three years after the creation of Indian National Congress by Octavian Hume in Bombay which was meant by the British Rulers that it would remain Loyal to British Government of India. Thus it will be seen that foundation of two-nation theory in India was laid down by the British with the help of men like Syed Ahmed Khan.
“I will treat in regular sequence of the political questions of India, in order that you may have full opportunity of giving your attention to them. The first of all is this, In whose hands shall the Administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations- the Mohammedans and the Hindus- could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power?

August 24, 2009 Posted by | India, Indian History, Pakistan, Political Commentary | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Second Parliament – A Brief Survey

The wheel of democratic elections has completed the third round and the chariot of parliamentary democracy has started moving smoothly on the Indian soil. In fact the greatest experiment in parliamentary democracy is being conducted in India. It is thus that, during the third general elections, the attention of the entire world was focused on India though the outcome, in terms of victory of Indian national congress and formation of government by Mr. Nehru, was never in doubt.

The success of parliamentary democracy in India has special significance because except in Colombo, the lights of democracy have gone out all around India in Karachi, Rangoon and Kathmandu. Even in Europe, except in U.K. Parliamentary democracy had got into trouble everywhere. There is quasi-dictatorship in France while Spain and Portugal are being run on the line of Hitlerite one-man rule. There is some sort of direct democracy in Switzerland, but in small countries like Holland and Belgium it does not much matter to the outside world whether there is Parliamentary democracy or military dictatorship. It is in this context that a brief survey of the second parliament has been attempted.

Can the world afford to be taken to the brink of war every six months or a year?

The history of events since the end of Second World War has shown that colonialism can not be defended bu dollar aids and communism can not be “contained” by military pacts. West should work for a negotiated retreat form its empires, colonies and protectorates and U.S.A should stop financing and equipping futile campaigns like that a French in Indo-China and Algeria and that of Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Tse-Tung.

The price of lasting peace is the end of all colonies and protectorates retreat of all U.S. Fleets to the American waters termination of Atlantic and war saw alliances suspension of nuclear tests and abolition of nuclear weapons.

By attempting to support the cause of discredited leaders like Chouman, Hussein and Chiang Kai-shek and defend colonies like Algeria and Goa. The west is burning its own boats. It is not only strengthening the forces of communism but disappointing and antagonizing the uncommitted nations like India, Egypt and Indonesia.

As Lok Sabha is the august law – making body and greatest single repository of sovereignty more attention had been paid to its works and achievements during 1957-1965. The main object is to see how far India has succeeded in the great experiment of establishing parliamentary democracy on a sound footing.

Composition And Class Structure

In the outset variations in the composition and structure of second Lok Sabha vis-a-vis first lok sabha must be pointed out and their implications analyzed. From the above table it will be seen that in the second Lok Sabha, except P.S.P. all the national political parties improved their representation at the cost of independents and other un-recognised political parties. The chief gainer was the C.P.I which earned recognition as the main opposition group in the Lok Sabha.

It is noteworthy that in the first general elections a plethora of political parties and groups were given ad-hoc recognition i.e. 14 as national parties and 59 as state parties. After the elections were over, the Election Commission decided that hereafter only those political parties would get recognition and symbols which had secured more than 3% of the valid votes polled. At the time of 1957 General Elections only four political parties and 12 as State parties. This is a healthy development.

In the second Lok Sabha the biggest opposition group had 27 votes against 371 of the ruling party. It is understandable because Indian National Congress, upto 1947, was not a political party, in the strict sense, but a national movement under whose banner all those had rallied who wanted to strive for the liberation of India form colonial rule. While, on the other hand, the C.P.I. is an extremist ideology and other parties viz. Jan Sangh and P.S.P are of post-independence origin. Above all no other party has dynamic leadership which Mr. Nehru provides for the Indian National Congress.

On May 10, 1957 the first sitting of the second Lok Sabha was held and upto December, 1961 i.e from the first to fifteenth session, 567 sittings with duration of 3,651 hours and 35 minutes were held. The second Lok Sabha had devoted more time because average duration of a sitting of Second Lok Sabha comes to 6 hours and 35 minutes as compared to 5 hours and 35 minutes of the first Lok Sabha.

There was younger element in the Second Lok Sabha at the majority of members fell in the age-group of 35-40 while in the first Lok Sabha it was the age group of 50-55. The class structure of the second Lok Sabha showed the decline of the professional politicians, businessman, industrialists and lawyers. There was a marked increase in the membership from agriculturist and teaching professions.

Legislative Work

The second Lok Sabha devoted 28.3% of its time to legislative business (excluding Budget) while the first lok Sabha had devoted 48.8%. The Budget matters took about 18% of the time of the second Lok Sabha and Questions 14.6%.

Upto the end of Fifteenth Session there were 209 enactments relating to fiscal, economic, social and political matters. In the fiscal field a number of acts were passed restricting the accumulation and inheritance of wealth (Wealth Tax). The laws relating to expenditure tax and super tax were amended so as to make the rich classed bear greater share of additional taxation required for the financing of the Five Year Plans.

In the economic and social field important acts were passed with the aim of ushering in significant social reforms. Measures like Working Journalists (fixation of rates of wages) Act, the Motor Transport Workers Act, the Maternity Benefit Act and the Iron and Mines Labour Welfare Class Act were brought to statute book.

In the social field most significant work of Second Parliament was the passage of Dowry Prohibition Act. As both houses of Parliament did not aggress to certain provisions of the Dowry Act, the differences were resolved by the joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament. On April 18, 1961, the President notified his intention to summon the Two Houses of Parliament for the consideration of controversial provisions and clauses of the Dowry Bill. The Prime Minister suggested May 6, 1961 for this unique event. The deliberation of the two Houses reached the fruitful culmination in two days. After the disagreement of two Houses on clauses 2 and 4 was resolved the speaker declared the joint concluded as there is no provision in the constitution for the joint sitting.

Other important measures in the social field related to rehabilitation of delinquent children. The children Act provided for the reform and resettlement of neglected and delinquent children and for their trial.

Adjournment Motions and Questions

Out of 1262 adjournment motion received 502 were brought before the Lok Sabha and only three were admitted and discussed. These admitted adjournment motions related to (I) police firing in Sweepers Colony in Delhi, (ii) Breakdown of water supply in Delhi and (iii) failure of Government to protect lie and property of people in Murshidabad – Rajshahi border against intrusions by Pakistani troops. There was heated discussion on all these three adjournment motion after which the two were negatived and the third was withdrawn. From the vast number of adjournment motions brought before the House and admission of only three in the span if Five Years, it becomes clear that there is a tendency to bring forth any adjournment motion on each and every minor issues. The privilege of tabling an adjournment motion has been rather extravagantly used.

During the Second Lok Sabha notices were received for as many as 1,33,328 Questions out of which 62,800 (47%) were admitted. The percentage of admitted questions during the first Lok Sabha was 61. Ministry of Commerce and Industry had to bear the maximum brunt of the questions i.e 13.9% of the admitted questions. Ministries of Railways, Home Affairs and Food and Agriculture trailed behind.

It will be seen from the brief summary of the business of the House that except on Legislative measures all type of other business has taken more time of the second Lok Sabha. More adjournment motions were tabled, greater number of questions was asked and more time was devoted to other national matters and international affairs. It was more interesting to watch the proceedings of the second parliament.

Important Debates

As India is universally recognized leader of the non-aligned group of nations and as the policy of non-aligned is conductive to the maintenance of world peace in which India is passionately interested, discussion of international affairs occupied the pride of place among the important matters discussed and debated in the Second Parliament. Questions relating to international situation and the reactions of Government of India there to came before the Second Lok Sabha as many as eight times. Some of the international matters became so very important for national unity and solidarity that these were discussed time and again. Among the more important issues that came before the Second Parliament are: Situation in Tibet, Sino-Indian relations especially the Chinese incursions into India, Congolese Crisis, Disarmament, and decision of U.K. Government, to join European Common Market. The L.I.C investment policy led to the resignation of Finance Minister T.T.Krishnamachari and compulsory retirement of a senior member of the Indian Civil Service.

Privileges of the Parliament

The Privileges Committee of the second Lok Sabha held 38 meetings and submitted 13 reports to the Lok Sabha and five to its speaker. The most widely-known issue before the Privileges Committee related to the comment and criticism published in a Bombay weekly “Blitz”. On April 11, 1961, Shri J.B.Kripalani, M.P in a speech indicated the Defence Ministry and impeached the Defence Minister Shri V.K.Krishna Menon. “Blitz” in a dispatch from its correspondent in Delhi published that speech, made in the Lok Sabha, with such critical comments that the House regarded it as a breach of its Privileges. The Twelfth and the Thirteenth Reports dealt with the “Blitz” case. The editor of the weekly Blitz was found guilty of the breach of the privileges of the House. He was summoned before the bar of the house and reprimanded by the Speaker. The Blitz case gave rise, in certain quarters, to the demand for the codification of the Privileges of the Parliament. As in no other Parliamentary democracy, the Privileges of the Parliament are codified, it may be left to the parliament’s discretion to decide a privileges issue as and when it arises on its merit, keeping in view the dignity of the House and Fundamental Right of the people.

The completion of the Third General Election symbolized the success of the Parliamentary democracy in India. In conclusion, it will be in the fitness of things to congratulate the speaker of the second Lok Sabha, Shri M. Ananthasyanam Ayyangar and all the members of Parliament for upholding the dignity of the House and for debates in the Indian Parliament was of a meritorious task. The standard of debates in the Indian Parliament was of the first order. We had our Burkes and Gladstones, we also had our churchills and Bevins. They analysed the facts, enlightened the House and served the nation. It can, be safely concluded that the Second Parliament has amply demonstrated the effectiveness of democratic procedures and practices in bringing social reforms and in revolutionizing the economy of India.

August 24, 2009 Posted by | India, Indian History | , , , | Leave a comment

Significance of Berlin Crisis

The so-called Berlin crisis appears to be prelude to a German crisis which, if not handled with foresight, may lead to world crisis. Against the western powers, what the Time calls a ‘winter offensive’ was launched when at the Russian – Polish friendship rally, Premier Khrushchev announced.

“The time has come when the powers who signed the Potsdam agreement should give up the remnants of the German occupation regime. The Soviet Union, on its part, will hand over these functions, which it still retains in Berlin, to sovereign German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and the US, French and British can form their own relations with East Germany, if they still have questions about East Germany”.

This was Mr. Khrushchev’s another move on the chessboard of international politics. Mr. Khrushchev’s, it seems, know well the sentiments of German People and equally well the weak flanks of western alliances. Once again, he had taken the western capitals by surprise. The west, particularly the USA, found itself on the horns of a dilemma because only four days before Mr. Khrushchev’s announcement the US, Secretary of state, Mr. Dulles, had unwittily declared “We are most solemnly committed to hold West Berlin, of need be, by military force”(Time 24, November 1958).

Consequently, hasty consultations took place between Nato powers to find a way out, to checkmate Mr. Khrushchev’s latest move, ti regain diplomatic initiative from Soviet Union and to convince the Germans that the west does not stand in the way of fulfillment of their long cherished aspiration , freedom and unification, not only of Berlin but of the whole of Germany.

The Soviet Union has made it clear that, come what may, she will hand over the control of East Berlin to the government of East Germany. This was tantamount to a unilateral scrapping of Potsdam agreement of 1 August 1945 between the then four victorious allies. By this drastic step, Mr. Khrushchev had aimed at diverting the attention of the world from the lingering Quemoy crisis, winning the favour of the German people and compelling with the latter on all Berlin matters. The west was forced with the grim alternatives either to follow Mr. Khrushchev in relinquishing control over West Berlin or suffer the consequence of a pro-Soviet drift in the public opinion of West Berlin and West Germany.
But Mr. Khrushchev has something more in his sleeve. Behind the facade of Berlin crisis is Kremlin’s ultimate object in Europe – the disintegration of Nato alliance. Mr. Khrushchev is convinced that, given a free opportunity, both the East and West Germany will make any pay any sacrifice and pay any price for the unification of their fatherland. The aim of Soviet Foreign Policy is to make possible mutual negotiations between the East and West Germany, thereby paving the way for a re-unification of Germany at the price of its neutralization.

The west is under an illusion if it thinks it can maintain statusquo in power politics for all times to come. The Soviet Union is determined to break the chain of military alliances around her rimland. This is the major premise of Soviet diplomacy whether in the Far East, neat east or in Europe. The Kassem revolution in Iraq was triumph of Soviet diplomacy, where without firing a single shot the most vital links in the chain of western military alliance was broken. Similarly, the aim of Soviet diplomacy in Europe is first to weaken Nato alliance by neutralizing Germany and then to work for its complete disintegration.

It is in this context that implications of Berlin crisis are to be understood. As off-share islands of Quemoy and Matsu, may be six months or a year hence, will have to be evacuated, similarly after Russia has withdrawn east Berlin, the west will have to relinquish of a crisis in the far east which can not be resolved unless Peking in accorded recognition and US 7th fleet withdrawn to American waters, similarly the Berlin crisis which cannot be resolved unless Germany is reunified and Atlantic and Warsaw pacts dissolved.

No attempt is made to prove the ineffability of Soviet diplomacy. It is mostly the weakness of the west that the Soviet Union takes advantage of. In the game of cold war diplomacy, the west loses and the Soviet Union wins more often, because usually the west, knowingly or otherwise, finds itself on the side of an unjust cause and unpopular leaders. The soviet diplomacy will continue to add feathers to its cap so long as the west does not change its policy in accordance with the changing needs of time.

Germany cannot be unified on western terms and conditions because the Soviet Union, the German people and the whole world know that the position of the west is therefore weak: it is inherently so, both on the question of Berlin and German unification. Mr. Khrushchev’s announcement on Berlin has afforded an opportunity to western leaders, even from their own view point, to meet the Soviet leaders and know their mind better because, whether they like it or not, it is they whom they have to deal with, if they wish to untie the tangled knots and save the world, including themselves, from the scourge of a nuclear war. There is thus an urgent need for a summit meeting to talk over the east-west differences in general, and the problems arising out of the Berlin crisis in particular.

It will be unfortunate if Mr. Dulles argues that when toughness has paid in Quemoy why not in Berlin?Such a policy, of pursued by the west will sabotage the chances of Berlin settlement and may lead to a repetition of Berlin ‘blockade’ like that of 1948-49. Non- recognition of east Germany by west means as little as non-recognition of the Peking regime by USA. A blockade-policy today will be more dangerous and complicated because this time, the west will have to deal with un-recognised east Germany and not with its rally the USSR. In such an eventuality, Eisenhower administration will be committing a mistake of the same magnitude which the Truman population of West Germany is almost three times that of East Germany (50 millions and 18 millions respectively). Besides west Germany is highly industrialized.

In 1954 at conclusion of the Second World was, Ruhr fell to west’s share, which is the richest heavy industry centre of Europe, while East Germany is so deficient that she depended for her industries in the coal and steel imported from the other half of Germany. In view of such population and economic superiority of West- Germany, insistence by the west on free elections in the whole of Germany means nothing more than an attempt to pull east Germany into western orbit and add a dozen more divisions of sturdy German soldiers to the armoury of Nato. On the other hand, Soviet Union’s condition of unification of Germany in the basis of its neutralization appears more practical and acceptable to the German people. France and Britain may also welcome this proposal because, next to Russia, they bore the maximum brunt of the German onslaught. It is more true of France because the French, like the Russians, have experienced a German invasion twice in the first half of the 20th century and will prefer to have a demilitarized Germany. From a Germany, equipped with nuclear with nuclear weapons, even if it be on their side, the French have nightmares.

August 24, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quemoy in world politics

Today in East Asia, Quemoy is again on fire. The ‘Dulles-Chiang’ communique has brought the world again to the brink of war. The world peace hangs on a delicate thread which may be broken, though not deliberately, by, marshal Chiang or marshal peng. Mr. Dulles or Mr. Chou Enlai, President Eisenhower or chairman Mao Tse-tung. Granted that none of them will, knowingly jump from the ‘brink’ but the fear is that, by standing there too long anyone of them may slip down taking the whole world with him– to nuclear war, death and destruction.

The world had heaved a sigh of relief when Mr. Dulles after more than a month’s shelling realizing that it was ‘foolish’ to keep a garrison of 2,00,000 on Quemoy and hinted that the U.S.A was ready to retreat but not in the face of force.

The Chinese gun stopped firing. Tension in the Far East eased. It was hoped that Mr. Dulles would pull the strings of his puppet (Chiang) and take it out of Quemoy. But that was only a pious hope that has been falsified by subsequent events. Mr Dulles visit to Taipeh and the communique after four days talks have made it clear that he still insists upon continuing this puppet show in Quemoy and Matsu there is now left no doubt that the U.S.A and Formosa availed of the two weeks voluntary silence of Chinese guns to reinforce the Quemoy garrison with food, oil, ammunition, spanking, new U.S made 155-mm howitzers and replacement tanks” (Time Oct, 20, 1958).

This was a clear breach of trust, a violation of undeclared, but vital, truce. Peking retaliated by resuming fire. Peking also charged that the U.S. Ships of 7th fleet had violated even the internationally recognized three miles limit of Chinese territorial waters. Under such a provocation and mounting danger it was too much to expect of the Chinese communists to acquiesce before Chiang’s boast that silence communist guns was Taipen’s victory over Peking.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Dulles has selected to listen only to the voice of shells and bombs. In 1955, too only in view of heavy air attack the Tachen Islands (morth of Quemoy and Matsu) were evacuated by Chiang Kaishek, though Chiang’s government announced that the islands were being evacuated “in order to strengthen the defense of other islands”. Then, 10,000 troops and 20,000 civilians were evacuated by 132 vessels and 400 aircrafts of the U.S. 7th Fleet (Keseings). To this evacuation, in the face of heavy communist air attack Peking called the ‘liberation’ of Tachen which had created favorable conditions for the ‘liberation of Taiwan and other coastal islands’.

Similarly a week later, an view of heavy air bombardment Nanchi Islands were evacuated, despite Chiang’s reiteration that these “Islands will be defended at all costs”.

As demonstration of military might had brought about the liberation of these islands, on 23rd August, 1958, about three years after the liberation of Tach and Nanchi. The Chinese asserted with the force of guns, their right over Quemoy and Matsu the only off-shore islands that now remain under Chiang’s occupation. The shelling continued day-after-day and night- after-night, but Mr. Dulles did not budge an inch. On September, 4, with the authority of the president he said that the defense of the Quemoy had “increasingly become related to the defense of Taiwan” to whose defense the U.S.A was committed. This meant that the U.S.A would rather risk a nuclear war than withdraw from these islands. The situation further aggravated when on 11th September, President Eisenhower, too, joined his secretary of state and expressed U.S. Determination not to repeat ‘Munich’. Prompt came Mr. Khrushchev’s warning the “China is not Lebanon. In one of the bluntest letters to a head of the state he left no margin of doubt that if the U.S.A attacked China, Moscow would consider it an attack on U.S.S.R. It was a warning as grim as Marshall, Bulganin’s at the time of Suez Crisis.

Mr. Dulles is under and illusion if he thinks he has the support of his Atlantic allies in his crusade against Peking. The influential ‘New Statesman’ wrote on 30th August 1958 that ‘nothing could be more foolish than to make a ’causesbelli’ out of the litte group of islands which lie closer to the mainland of China than the Isle of Wight to England”.

Even in the U.S.A some notable authorities on international affairs like Mr. Walter Lippman have advised the American people, including Mr. Dulles, that the U.S.A should “prepare for the passing of Chiang’s regime and we should go before the world in favor of a Formosan settlement asking no special privileges, strategic and economic for ourselves and Mr. Harry S. Truman, former president of U.S.A has called the Dulles- Eisenhower foreign policy as one of “blunder, bluster and brinkmanship”!

The U.S.A should also not bank too much upon the invulnerability of Chiang’s regime. The implications of Taipeh riots of May, 1957 when the U.S. Embassy was sacked against the release of an American soldier charged with the murder of a Chinese by the martial law court, should not be forgotten. The possibility of overthrowing the Peking regime either by invasion or by sub-version is the problems of off-shore islands and Formosa, as Mr. V.K.Krishna Menon has rightly pointed out in the U.N.General Assembly, are remnants of Chinese civil war and the present struggle for their liberation is a ‘continuation’ of that civil war in which interventionally the U.S.A or any other nation is a violation of international law, as was the British intervention in American civil was (Alabama Claims).

In this context the question of recognition of Peking regime and its admission to the U.N is of vital importance. Washington should not forget that at the 1958 session of the U.N.General Assembly, increasing number of nations have voted for Peking regime to occupy its legitimate place in the U.N and the security council. Soon majority of 81 nations may vote for seating the communist China because it will not be convincing to any realistic nation that Formosa is China and not Peking but Taipeh is its capital.

The question of Quemoy remains unsolved in spite of 44 days heavy shelling and resumption of artillery fire on 20th October.

August 24, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cold War Between USA and USSR

Since the end of Second World War in 1945 entire Europe including UK and entire South East Asia were thrashed and thus politically and diplomatically became ineffective, rivalry between USA and USSR commenced for legacy.

USA supported with all its might Chiang Kaishek against communist MaoTse Tung so that China does not become communist under Mao and does not become ally of communist USSR. The fight between Chiang supported by Macarther and Dulles went on for many years killing Lakhs of Chinese whether supporters of Chiang or Mao. Ultimately Mao used the strategy of long March, taking all the communist supporters to safer north west from where there could not be attack by allied forces. Very soon Chinese communists with back to the wall started advancing and eliminating Chiang Kaishek’s forces. In a couple of years Chiang was thrown out of mainland China and confined to Taiwan and a few islands like Quency and Mastu. After the victory over Germany during Second World War it was USA’s first defeat.

The weakness of Dulles-Eisenhower policy over Berlin is clear to many west Berliners who, as the American ‘Newsweek’ admits, are arguing, “we are not sure the allies are willing to back us all the way this time. Sure, they have promised but is it worth it to them” ( I December 1958). There is not much doubt that the West can stand firm in Berlin, perhaps as firm as it could ten years before, but that would mean, warns Paul Johnson, that “we must recognize that we are abandoning, perhaps for ever, the hope of reunifying Germany (New Statesman, 29 November 1958).

To consolidate their respective positions in the spheres of their influence, USA created NATO and SEATO. On the other hand, not to be left, USSR took strong action against dissenting communist countries like Yugoslavia and Hungary. Soviet intervention in Hungary was very cruel. It led to the execution of Imrey Nagy and his cabinet colleagues. There was hue and cry against Soviet activities in socialist Hungary. In retaliation, USA landed marines in Lebanon and British paratroops occupied Jordan.

USA despite being on the other side of Atlantic and despite the professing of Munro Doctrine got scared of USSR attack as is evident from American expert on diplomacy and world affairs Mr. George Kenan’s remarks on 2 December 1957 on BBC.

“I have never thought that the Soviet Government wanted a general world war at any time since 1945 or that it would have been inclined for any rational political reasons of its own to initiate such a war, even had the atomic weapon never been invented. We must get over the obsession that the Russians are yearning to attack and occupy western Europe and this is the outstanding danger.”

My both articles viz Quemoy in world politics as well as significance of Berlin crises are based on the cold war, American fears of USSR because of defeat in China and soviet fears of Americans intervention in Yugoslavia and Hungary as well as in Berlin and German area under USSR occupation after the end of second world war. This brief review of cold war is based on these observations.

August 24, 2009 Posted by | Cold War, USA, USSR, World, World History | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brief Review of Laski’s Pluralism

Decentralization of power is a paramount necessity because absolute power is likely to corrupt absolutely those who wield and in the second place is likely to result in its perpetuation and ultimate destruction of civil liberties of the people and their representative institutions, as well as voluntary associations.

It is the right of the trade union to be concerned in the administration of industry and to be consulted in the determination of wages that pluralists like Laski attach importance to.

The problem of representation is to enable mass of men to have some share in the government, howsoever indirect, periodic and inadequate it might be. Laski grants sufficient freedom to representatives and warns that too much cannot be expected from them. They will not be delegates in the sense either (a) ‘making all their views on new problem back to their constituents for approval’. Nothing more is conceded to the people than their right to elect their representatives once in ‘four or five years and, in the case of national emergency, right to put pressure through their groups. As mere right to vote is not enough so is the existence of representative institutions. A system, to be just, must have educated a politically conscious system and exercise discretion in the selection of their representatives. They should also have rights, leisure and minimum economic well being.

There seems to be “no inseparable bond between pluralism and administrative decentralization”. Laski’s pluralism involves the making of decisions out of the interests which will be effected by them and, in turn their application by those interests. For Laski it means self – government in industries like mining, textile and steel; it also means existence of consultative bodies or representative of the professions, e.g., surrounding the Ministry of education with bodies entitled to speak on behalf of parties to the educational process and entitled to be consulted because they are entitled to speak. And, for Laski it also means the abandonment of concept of state sovereignty in the sense which ‘equates’ government with society.

The principle of social organization in the pluralist society of which Laski speaks is that an individual is entitled to act in the way his instructed conscience directs him. It is the insistence that coordination should grow from within and not be imposed from without. Laski’s scheme rightly recognizes the necessity of a coordinating authority but, be it noted, not of the same type as was advocated by hobbies in Leviathn and even as exists in the modern class states of which we have ample experience.

This ‘creative coordination’ can only be there if for the whole people conditions of decent life exist. To prove the validity of this Marxian truth Laski reiterates that a man cannot be his “best self, if he is involved in a perpetual struggle to satisfy the barest minimum of physical appetites”. A society to be pluralist and just, must therefore, recognize all the rights postulated by Laski. Freedom of speech if life blood of the society. Without universal education some will have access to power and inclination to perpetuate them in power. If vast property is held in private hands , its owner will control the state in their own interest to the exclusion of property less.

August 24, 2009 Posted by | Laski | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

1952 to 1962

For writing articles on national and international affairs and Pluralist Political Philosoph of Laski I am indebted to Indian council of world affair, sapru house where from 1954 to 1962. I spent all the spare time after attending office, reading and writing and having discussions and exchange of views with friends and regular visitors like Dr. J D Sethi. Who was lecturer in camp college in New Delhi at that time and finally with education and dedication became member of planning commission of govt. of India and shri Jagmohan who had then recently come from Punjab as asst. secretary Delhi Development Authority and rose to become Chairman DDA, then governor and thereafter a minister and Shri M L Dhawan who was class fellow of Shri Jagmohan in Lahore and served in UPSC in various capacities till his retirement.

Dr. M.S.Venketaramni, Additional Director – school of international studies, sapru house was impressed by my article in Tribune, inspired me to continue my study and some research and journalistic writing. My first article on QUEMOY in world politics was published in Sunday Tribune’s magazine section and subsequent articles in parliamentary studies and “Contemporary” magazines. I continued to write Afro-Asian diary for a number of years for a local weekly-Delhi Times. In the meantime I continued my studies and research on Professor Harold Laski.

August 24, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment