INDIAN AFFAIRS
(November
1953 to January 1954)
By
Prof. K. V. RAO, M.A., M. Litt.
(
1953 ended on a note of optimism in the speeches of
the Finance Minister and other Ministers in Parliament. On the ‘food front’ we
seem to have not only turned the corner and actually crossed the wood, but also
to be having troubles in the opposite direction–of falling agricultural prices!
In the industrial sector also production figures are encouraging; within the
last 30 years production here has increased by 150 per cent.
Colin
Clark–a prophet without the curse of Cassandra–has thrown a bombshell by
foretelling that a wave of deep depression would pass through
“In the first place, whether there will be a recession in
the United Nations or not, and how serious that recession, will be regarded as
matters of speculation. Prognostications have been made in the
past and have often proved wrong. Nevertheless, should a serious recession
develop actually and should primary prices fall to uneconomic levels, then I
concede that corrective measures would undoubtedly be necessary on our side, as
they would equally undoubtedly be taken by the country
concerned. I should imagine that the fact that we have a Plan and that
expenditure in the public sector is being stepped up substantially, should
maintain domestic incomes and domestic demands...But if one may venture on a
forecast, it is hardly likely that things will be allowed to go that far.”
Apart
from the happy trend noticed above, we observe the beginnings of a few others
which augur well for our future in what we may call the ‘public life of
Or,
am I mistaken about the latter class of intellectuals of
The
complaint of the Government is that teachers are too academic and their
proceedings are doctrinaire and therefore unrealistic, though Sri Krishnamachari admitted, quoting Prof. Rostov, that the economists
should move on the economic plane. But a more pertinent question is; who is
more doctrinaire, the Government or the teachers? Are
not the Reserve Bank and the Finance Ministry (and the Planning Commission)
applying the economics which they learnt from
I am glad, however, that we now see the necessity to base our plans on theories and our policies on principles. Three distinct schools of thought could be distinguished in the Government agencies as well as among the academicians. A school of thought in the Government believes in the doctrinaire economic policies, and is trained in the traditional British Universities. This is similar to the one that exists among the academic economists from whom the advisers of the former are largely drawn. A second school in the Government believes in pragmatism, while another tries to steer a middle course–is it middle?–believing that the social structure and the politics of a nation are partly determined by its economic life and that, at the same time, the operation of the economy is partially determined by the social and political framework. These three may be said to be represented roughly by the Finance Minister (and the Planning Commission), the Food Minister, and the Commerce Minister respectively.
Outside
the Government there is the school roughly represented by the large majority of
the academicians, trained in English and
We
are thus coming out of the nebula and beginning to base our policies on
principles so that the people are now in a position to understand them better.
This is in contrast with the old method of putting into practice whatever one’s
convictions or even fanaticism tells them; and in this list I put, as examples,
the Vanamahotsava of Sri Munshi
and the Elementary Education Scheme of Sri Rajaji. Whatever might be their
intrinsic merits, such changes and schemes should be the result of collective
thinking and clear ideas. Rajaji is reported to have said that he insisted on
the scheme because it was his idea since a long time. A social reformer in
The
recent Part I-A Report of the Census Commissioner–a very admirable one,
otherwise–contains a few illustrations of the grounding in English economics.
Asking the question: Can we develop agriculture so as to keep pace with the
number specified in Table 10? (indicating a terrible
increase in population by 1981), the Report answers that only birth control by
our women, ‘a near miracle’, can save us. Obviously, as one Journal has pointed
out, the Report has not taken into account the possible increase in
agricultural production as well as in our capacity to import food.
That
we can improve our annual income is amply testified by the Plan which has been
recently revised to increase expenditure in the public sector. The working of
the Plan seems to be all right, though one or two special features require our
attention. Firstly, it has been shown that we have so far been unable to use
our foreign exchange resources. The second feature is that private industry is
not happy with the concept of mixed economy in our Welfare State, the latest to
join in the chorus of protests being (Sir) Homi Mody, for some time Governor of U. P. His point of view
which requires careful attention, is that the Government have done a great deal
to impair private enterprise, and governmental policy is lacking in consistency
and leading to a state of uncertainty “in which it has become very difficult
for the private sector of industry .to make any substantial contribution”.
Sir
Homi’s charge can be illustrated by one or two examples
chosen from the period of survey. Recently it was reported that the Commerce
Minister was thinking of a new policy for industrialising
the country–the State would first start industries, in some cases where private
capital was not coming into the field, and then, after they are successful,
hand over these industries to private enterprise. This new policy is just the
opposite to the current policy whereby it was reported that the State might nationalise industries started by private enterprise after
they are proved successful, though of late the members of the Government have
been at pains to convince the industrialists that they were not going to nationalise much. Now which of these policies stands? What
is our objective–to industrialise the country, or to nationalise, or both? Pandit Nehru is reported to have
exhorted the nation to become ‘share-holders in India Ltd’. An excellent idea,
indeed, and it must certainly enthuse the people,
coming as it does from their idol. But why not devise a practical way of making
the people actual share-holders instead of making them merely feel so?
This can be done by suitably altering Sri Krishnamachari’s
reported plan, whereby the State, after starting and successfully running new
industries, will hand them over to a private Finance Corporation in which the
people and the State have equal shares. This can also solve one of the
headaches of the Planning Commission, as to how to make the people save and
invest more. People are willing to save provided they get a reasonable return,
and shares in a good industrial concern run by the Government will
attract them better than a mere 4 per cent on the Small Savings Scheme. I may
also suggest that the State might throw open half the shares of the Railways to
public subscription after making the Railways a joint-stock company, or invite
public subscription for the proposed steel plant.
The
levy of death duties, recently proposed, is another example of that
‘inconsistent’ thinking. No doubt, it is true that the idea of death duties was
there for the last twenty and odd years, and also that
the purpose of taxation is accepted as socio-political. Yet, there are two
points deserving our attention. The Government want
private capital to play its part, and yet they tax it right and left–that is
Sir Homi’s charge–and also collect all the available
capital through small savings and big savings! Again, the Government have recently appointed a Taxation Enquiry Commission to go
into the matter very comprehensively; could not the Government wait, it may be
asked, till its Report is available? Critics have also pointed out that the new
tax might not fulfill our expectations. In the first place, if its object is to
reduce inequality, then, not only is the rate suggested too small, but also the
experience of countries like
This raises-apart from the merits of the legislation itself–a point of fundamental constitutional importance. Should the Legislature conduct itself according to the written Constitution, or should the Constitution be changed to suit the purpose of a State Legislature? All theories of the Constitution support the former view–that the Legislature should not go against the Constitution and that the Constitution is written and made rigid exactly to prevent this contingency. Originally Art. 31 was the result of a long discussion inside and outside the Constituent Assembly, and the compromise formula was moved by Pandit Nehru himself. It is interesting to note that during the discussion Pandit Nehru made it clear that the object was zamindari abolition and it should be fulfilled, Constitution or no Constitution, courts or no courts. “The Constitution is the creature of Parliament,” he declared to the bewilderment of constitutional Pandits, and it would be changed if necessary, and change they did to abolish zamindari. But should it be changed as often as it comes in the way of an enthusiastic Legislature?
My
old complaint thus stands vindicated, that either we have not understood the
Constitution or we are forgetting it. I may cite two more examples. The
question was recently asked in the M.P. Assembly as to when an unseated
Minister–unseated by the action of the Tribunal–ceases to be a Minister in the
light of A. 164 (4), and I may add, in the light of A. 193, because if he
ceases to be a Member and a Minister, he is liable to be punished for attending
the Assembly. The decision of the Speaker of the M.P. Assembly seems to be that
the Minister could remain for six months after the Gazette notification
unseating him. Without meaning any disrespect to the Speaker, it may very
respectfully be argued, (1) that an election that is declared null and void
unseats the Member from the date of his election as he was never elected
at all, and because he was a Minister he could continue so for six months from
the date of his first appointment; and (2) that if the Minister should attend
the Assembly again (i.e. after the expiry of the six-month period) he
automatically comes under Art. 193. It may also be added, (1) that he simply
‘ceases’ to be a Minister–the courts can refuse to enforce his orders under A.
164 (4), and there is no need for resignation or dismissal; and (2) that the
Governor could again appoint him a Minister by a notification. There was a
similar case in
A
question was recently raised in the Andhra Assembly ‘whether the Governor could
recommit a ‘Money Bill’. The Article dealing with the matter, A. 200, says that
the Governor may “return the Bill, if it is not a Money Bill...”. In the face of such a clear injunction, could the
Governor recommit the Bill, and what is the remedy in such cases? A better
course for the Government would have been to drop or veto the original Bill and
bring in a fresh one.
The
recent exhibition of temper twice during the life time of the present
Parliament, both the times during the absence of the Prime Minister, indicates
the way the two Houses are likely to work in future. The Houses calmed down–it
required the intervention of a Nehru to do it! But a question of greater
importance is left out. Is it proper to set up a joint Select Committee of both
the Houses? The idea seems to be to gain time, and if so, is it not
circumventing the Constitution? The only justification for
giving.
No
other pronouncement of the Government could create such
mixed feelings of joy and disappointment at the same time. The public has as
much confidence in the personnel of the Commission as it has misgivings on the
nature of their work. What exactly are its ‘terms of reference’? On the
negative side we know that nothing should be done which would impair the unity
and solidarity of the Indian nation. On that question there are no differences
of opinion. Does it mean that each language should claim a State, or that
States should be divided among the major languages of