To Protect Freedom

The leaders of the Opposition groups in the Indian Parliament questioned the wisdom of continuing the procedure of preventive detention for another two years. The ordinary process of the law ought to be enough, according to them, to enable the Government of the day to deal with any difficult situation and maintain law and order. Imprisonment without a judicial trial, they contend, cuts at the root of democracy; it is opposed to the fundamental rights guaranteed to Indian citizens by the Constitution.

While these objections were advanced by all the Opposition groups, there was among them a broad division into two sections, according to the motives that impelled them to fight against the Bill. Leaders like Pandit Kunzru and Dr. S. P. Mookherjee are genuine friends of freedom and democracy, anxious that the rights of citizens should not be curtailed by ‘repressive’ laws. They found it difficult to believe that erstwhile leaders of the freedom fight could become sponsors of measures like preventive detention. They functioned as a constitutional Opposition seeking to limit the operation of the Bill to a shorter period and to a few specified States. In the Select Committee, the Government made important concessions like those relating to the furnishing of fresh reasons for a fresh detention, and the supply of confidential documents to the members of the Advisory Boards. Finally the Home Minister promised to bring up the new Act for reconsideration at the end of an year. He was glad to oblige the veteran publicists who sincerely sought to improve the Bill.

Of an entirely different character was the opposition of the Communists and their allies. While, for the time being, they are in Parliament as representatives of the people elected on universal suffrage, they have not altogether abandoned violence in their extra-parliamentary activities. They claim the right to retain their arms for use at a moment’s notice, and they assume the tone of victors in a civil war dictating terms. Their speeches on the Bill left no room for doubt about their intentions. Their ultimate aim is to seize power through a violent revolution, if necessary, and liquidate all parties but their own. No one need be deceived by their professions of democracy, for their general attitude to the Constitution and to orderly Party Government is a negation of democracy.

The Home Minister made it clear that the Bill was not directed against any Party as such, but only against individuals or groups in regard to whom a reasonable suspicion exists that they are trying to undermine the tranquility of the State. It can be no pleasure to a great democrat like Nehru to place on the Statute Book a measure restricting the liberty of the individual. But he is confronted with a situation in which the freedom of the Nation, won after a prolonged struggle with a foreign power, is threatened by disruptive forces,–feudal, communal, and revolutionary. Preventive detention becomes a necessary evil for the protection of national freedom. How long it will continue to be necessary will depend on the attitude of those in opposition who, in the name of individual liberty, threaten the foundations of the State.

India and Kashmir

The agreement reached between the Governments of India and Kashmir recognises the special position of that State and its right to be treated differently from other ‘Part B’ States. When the Maharaja of Kashmir and the leaders of the National Conference agreed to accede to the Indian Union, it was in respect of the three subjects of Defence, External Affairs and Communications. There was no mental reservation on either side about the genuineness of the accession or its validity. Kashmir became a part of the territory of India. But while complete integration with India was achieved in regard to all other States, Kashmir sought to frame its own Constitution through a Constituent Assembly. Among the major decisions of the Assembly is that relating to the election of the Head of the State subject to the approval of the President of India, and the regulation of citizenship rights with a view to exclude undesirable foreigners who might infiltrate into the State and impair its safety. Considering the proximity of Pakistan and the peculiar circumstances in which the accession of Kashmir took place, the Government of India accepted the decisions of the Assembly. The present agreement is, however, to be followed by further negotiations for the purpose of securing greater uniformity in the relations between the Union and the States.

Representatives of other ‘Part B’ States in Parliament are not happy about the special concessions made in the case of Kashmir. If Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir–who acceded to India–is deposed and his son is merely elected as Head of the State for five years, why should the Nizam of Hyderabad, who fought against the Union, continue to function as the Rajpramukh of the State? But it is important to remember, in this connection, that hereditary rulership has been abolished allover India, and the Rajpramukhs retain office only so long as the President recognises them. That recognition may be withdrawn at any time. No occasion has so far arisen for the exercise of the President’s powers, and meanwhile there is no difference whatsoever in the constitutional position of the Governors of ‘Part A’ States and the Rajpramukhs of ‘Part B’ States. It is not necessary to precipitate a crisis at this stage on an issue which is not of fundamental importance. Kashmir is bound, sometime later, to fall in line with the rest of India. What is of immediate consequence is the peaceful settlement of the dispute between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir. The forthcoming negotiations at Geneva may be fruitful or they may not. But nothing should be done to force the pace of events inside Kashmir by insisting on the complete and immediate integration of Kashmir. The suggestion to merge Jammu with India, and separate it from the rest of the State, can only lead to the eventual partition of Kashmir, on which Pakistan has set her heart.

Cultural Academies

There is a widespread urge in all parts of India to bring together the poets, artists and scholars, and promote friendly understanding between them. From time to time there is a brief spurt of activity. Manifestoes are issued, conferences organised, and committees appointed for the constitution of Academies of Arts and Letters. But with the solitary exception of the P. E. N. India Centre, no India-wide cultural organisation has yet emerged. The National Commission of the UNESCO, and the committees appointed by the Government of India after the Delhi Conferences early in 1951, have not established the necessary contacts between the cultural leaders of the different States. The organisation envisaged by Sri K. M. Munshi is still-born, and from the start, it was vitiated by a too-obvious desire to establish the primacy of Hindi. Writers in the different languages of India are slowly winning recognition in neighbouring language-areas through the occasional translation of poems or stories direct from one language to another, or into a common language like English or Hindi. But this work has to be done on a much wider scale and with ample financial resources. Dr. C. Kunhan Raja rightly emphasises the need for State initiative in this matter. He pleads for a South Indian Academy of Letters, of which the foundation members representing the four South Indian languages and Samskrit should be nominated by the Governor of Madras and the Rajpramukhs of Mysore and Travancore-Cochin. This will mean a good beginning, and it may lead to an all-India organisation where every important language of India will find adequate recognition. The main effort of any cultural academy must be directed to the improvement of the position of the writers. Their writings must be published, reviewed, and adequately rewarded. Younger writers must be sought out from obscure corners and greater warmth and tenderness displayed towards them. At present most of them feel ‘left out’. In free India, the conditions have to be provided in which Art and Literature can flourish and enrich the culture of the nation.

Government and the Universities

The report of the Radhakrishnan Commission on University reorgantsation has yet to be implemented. Meanwhile a new Commission on Secondary Education will be appointed with Dr. A. L. Mudaliar as chairman. The question of the reform and reorganisation of education is naturally bound up with the provision of adequate funds. But the Central Government’s Ministry on Education fares like the proverbial Cinderella in the matter of allocation of finances. The position may improve during the next few years, and with wise planning and co-ordination of effort between the Centre and the States, education at all levels may become widespread and efficient.

The new Universities Bill has evoked adverse comment from some leading educationists and organs of public opinion. It is being interpreted as an attempt to interfere with the autonomy of the Universities and to reduce them to the position of departments of the State. But the latest Press Note of the Government India clarifies the position. The Bill, claims the Note, is a step towards the implementation of the Radhakrishnan Report, and a genuine effort will be made to secure the maintenance of uniformly high standards. The Council to be set up will contain a good number of Vice-Chancellors and leaders of thought in the country. But there is one matter in regard to which dissatisfaction is likely to be felt. The change-over from English to an Indian language as the medium of instruction in the Universities cannot be sudden or forced. In all non-Hindi areas, the local University ought to be free to employ the regional language in place of English. And those Universities will raise no objection to the teaching of Hindi, even as a compulsory second language, in all Indian Universities. Only thus can the prevailing controversies be set at rest.

¹August 19.

Back