Book Review: Minoo Masani, by S. V. Raju
Published by National Book Trust, Rs 40
Masani s Manifesto
Atul Chaturvedi
Indian Express
10 February 2008
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/270692.html
When Minocher Rustom (Minoo) Masani died in 1998, just seven years short of his centenary, it was the end of an era. For Masani was the last of a particularly unique brand of politician — an intellectual to whom principles mattered, and one without the faintest hankering for power.
S.V. Raju, an associate of Masani's, has filled the huge gap in our knowledge of his life, and brought him to life for a generation that has, sadly, not even have heard his name. The field till now had been held by Masani's own vivid, two-volume account, Against the Tide, now unjustifiably out of print.
Masani was a lawyer who joined the freedom struggle, and was imprisoned in 1932 and 1934. At 38, he was elected as Bombay's youngest mayor. Masani also worked for J.R.D. Tata. It speaks volumes about the two of them that when Masani courted arrest, he first told Tata, who told him to get in touch once he was out of jail!
Politically, Masani was a radical who espoused socialism. In the Congress, he was a member of a ginger group, the Congress Socialist Party, and counted among his colleagues Jayaprakash Narayan, Achyut Patwardhan, and Ram Manohar Lohia. Masani was an admirer of the Soviet Union, but not an uncritical one.
He began to distance himself from the Soviets after examining all the information he could get about the purges. This, in turn, led him to warn against the Communist Party of India, its call for a United Front, and its policy of infiltrating the Congress.
Masani's disenchantment with Socialism grew apace, especially after he came into personal contact with Gandhi. By the early 1950s, we can safely say that Masani's political stance was an interesting combination of political liberalism and Gandhian ethics. For a former socialist, he was unique in stating that a mixed economy was a necessity for India. What, then, was the difference with Nehru? Masani believed that Nehru's was a statist economy, in which individual liberty was subordinated. The story goes that an offer was made to Masani to join the government, conditional on whether he would support Nehru or Patel. His replied that he would support anyone who supported his principles. Result — no ministry.
Masani entered Parliament in 1957, and soon became general secretary of the newly founded Swatantra Party, under the leadership of the venerable C. Rajagopalachari. He was the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and for almost a decade opened the debate on the budget from the opposition benches. In Parliament, he refused to oppose for the sake of opposing. When the rupee was devalued, he supported the move after consulting economists. He insisted that a no-confidence motion should be moved only if a viable alternative was available.
After the failure of the Swatantra Party in the 1971 polls, Minoo Masani left politics. He, however, became active again during the Emergency, supporting his old comrade JP. He won a landmark case against the government when it tried to put fetters on his journal, Freedom First. For the first and only time in his life, he occupied an official position as Chairman of the Minorities Commission, but quit after deciding that the Janata government had no interest in it. To the end, principles prevailed over power.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Expose the soclialist lie in our Constitution
There has been an interesting development this month. A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of 'socialist' in the Preamble to the Constitution. Also, questioning the constitutionality of the need for all registered political parties to pledge allegiance to socialism under the Representation of People Act. For long, the liberals have been demanding that the socialist pledge is a violation of the democratic spirit and the Constitution. And now we have an opportunity to build awareness of the issue among the people. Here is a list of articles in the media that have looked in to this issue the month of January 2008. All of these articles, and others are also compiled at www.InDefenceofLibertyt.org
1) Socialism, it would then appear, has had no meaning in the Indian Constitution. All along, it has been an empty vessel into which any content could be poured: it was a convenient alibi to rationalise the constitutionality of the economic policies of incumbent governments at various points, writes Shubhankar Dam, in a two-part article in the Daily News of Pakistan, on 13 and
2) Constitution says that
3) Countries where socialism was the only political ideology of the state inevitably degenerated into dictatorship. So, is there any need for all political parties to pledge allegiance to socialism in a multi-party democracy like
4)The Supreme Court recently shot down a challenge to Indira Gandhi's 1970s-era ploy to stamp her economic policies on the country in perpetuity. At issue: Does the word "socialism" belong in the Indian Constitution? Parliament can still fix this mess, but no party is likely to take up the cause because in political circles capitalism and profit are, like Nehru said, "bad words."
5) Socialist control on industry brought License Raj, which damaged our moral character, making us one of the most corrupt societies. Socialist labour rules shattered accountability among state employees. Hence, above-average people in government produce below-average results--unlike
6) The liberal mantra can be summed up as: Free trade, economic freedom, private property, sound money, the rule of law, and collective investment in genuine collective property, which is roads. Yet, liberal parties remain barred. India is condemned to 'hover through the fog and filthy air' of socialism, a political doctrine that places society above the individual, and collective property above private property. Circumstances have committed the entire political process to socialists, and they alone are to be allowed into electoral competition excluding the liberals, writes Sauvik Chakraverti, in the Indian Express on 31 January 2008.
If you write anything on this issue, or if you come across interesting analysis of this issue, please share it with all of us. Please feel free to comment.
Agenda for April 2008 IFAN MEET
- Dear IFAN Members,
- Here is the agenda for next IFAN meet.
- Kindly give your suggestions, comments and feedback. Most important is how will you contribute in this given agenda to achieve liberalism, your role, and your efforts. Please reply soon.
IFAN as network, which provides a platform for the members to exchange ideas, and explore ways of collaborating with each others, in order to build synergy towards a wider liberal movement in India.
In the last two meetings of IFAN, we have worked to provide a structure and direction to the network. In last meeting, Alumni’s have also shared their area of interest and the area where they can promote liberal ideas. At the 2008 meeting, we could strive towards a few specific outputs. With this in mind, we may like to discuss the following objectives for the next IFAN meeting, which could be held in the first week of April 2008.
Objectives:
1. IFAN members discuss on activities how they would engage themselves in improving understanding of liberal ideas and promoting liberal values and also add value to members of the network.
Once common grounds are found, the members might break up in different working groups to explore in details the possible areas of cooperation, and the nature of that collaboration, with the aim of coming up with specific programme of activities from each of working groups.
2. FNSt is proposing a national Liberal Convention for later this year. And IFAN members may discuss the possible way they could contribute to making this a success. Particularly, suggesting themes and topics, identifying speakers and resource persons, and pursuing with the resource persons to ensure their participation. Also, where possible, volunteering to participate in the organizational aspects of the conference.
3. FNSt is supporting to build afresh a liberal youth movement - Liberal Youth Forum of India (LYF-India). IFAN meeting may be coordinated with the launch of LYF-India, and the core group of LYF-India members may be invited to participate in IFAN as observers, to explore another possible area of collaboration.
In the last two meetings of IFAN, we have worked to provide a structure and direction to the network. In last meeting, Alumni’s have also shared their area of interest and the area where they can promote liberal ideas. At the 2008 meeting, we could strive towards a few specific outputs. With this in mind, we may like to discuss the following objectives for the next IFAN meeting, which could be held in the first week of April 2008.
Objectives:
1. IFAN members discuss on activities how they would engage themselves in improving understanding of liberal ideas and promoting liberal values and also add value to members of the network.
Once common grounds are found, the members might break up in different working groups to explore in details the possible areas of cooperation, and the nature of that collaboration, with the aim of coming up with specific programme of activities from each of working groups.
2. FNSt is proposing a national Liberal Convention for later this year. And IFAN members may discuss the possible way they could contribute to making this a success. Particularly, suggesting themes and topics, identifying speakers and resource persons, and pursuing with the resource persons to ensure their participation. Also, where possible, volunteering to participate in the organizational aspects of the conference.
3. FNSt is supporting to build afresh a liberal youth movement - Liberal Youth Forum of India (LYF-India). IFAN meeting may be coordinated with the launch of LYF-India, and the core group of LYF-India members may be invited to participate in IFAN as observers, to explore another possible area of collaboration.
Regards,
Ashraf Ahmed Shaikh
National Coordinator
IFAN
IFAN MEET APRIL 2008.
- Dear IFAN Mmebers,
- I wish all of you a very haapy new year 2008.
- We are planning to have next IFAN Meeting in the first week of April 2008 with some new exciting ideas.
- Nupur would have sent you all the copy of agenda, we request you to give your comments and suggestion soon. This will enable us to decide the rest of the programme.
- Since this blog is made, inspite of repeated request our members are not contributing much on this. I know the potential of our members and their work. I therefore request all of you to share you synergies here so that we can be aware of your good work.
- You all are also requested to encourage and motivate other members too ,to use this blog and participate actively in the activities of our own IFAN.
- Hope to hear from you,
- Ashraf Ahmed Shaikh
- National Coordinator
- IFAN
Friday, September 14, 2007
Manchesterite Free Trade Movement, Greenpeace-style
To all the Participants of fhe Liberal Roundtable held in Hyderabad on 6-7 September, 2007
From: Sauvik Chakraverti
1. Since we hold that all solutions lie in the market, and no solutions lie in this State, our political strategy must be one of chipping away at government restrictions and controls: the first of which must be the customs department. Therefore, our first direct political intervention must be aimed at free trade.
2. My idea is simplicity itself: First, we engage in pamphleteering, and circulate Frederic Bastiat's "Candlemakers' Petition" in each and every coastal town on our western seaboard – from Kutch and Porbandar down to Cochin. With the engagement of some local agent provocateurs, the mass of the city will immediately conceive free trade as in their own self-interest – as also their "ancient tradition". Furthermore, they will all see the customs department as an obstruction that should be removed. This widespread "opinion" will be our greatest strength, apart from the clarity of our views. Two other essays of Batsiat against "reciprocity" in trade should be circulated as well. There is also my "Walled-in Ideas: We No Longer Need Economists", about The Wall around the port of Mangalore. Two of my recent "Antidote" columns also endorse free trade with simplicity and clarity. All these should be translated into the local languages and put into the public domain in each and every one of these coastal port cities and towns.
3. Next, we "facilitate" trade between any one of these port cities and Dubai. Merchants in the Indian city will pay for merchandise in Dubai which will be loaded on to a ship called "RAINBOW WARRIOR HAJI MASTAN " that will then set sail for that city. In the meantime, the climate of "opinion" in that city will be one of joy and optimism – that "my ship is coming in". When the ship arrives, I do believe the customs department will get out of the way, as the entire mass of that city approaches the port shouting "Rukawat Hatao". This "event" will be reported in the media.
4. The rest will be the stuff of history: a thousand ships will set sail for all these liberated ports of India; they will be followed by thousands of cargo planes headed for the inland cities and towns. These "merchant ships" will dominate public discourse and the "pirate ship" of the State will steal away from the scene. As was said of one of the last Mughal Emperors: "Poor old Shah Alam / He rules from Delhi to Palam," Instead of "Dilli Chalo" the cry will be "Dilli Chhoro" as the Great Konkan Gold Rush makes people respond to economic incentives and shift bag-and-baggage to the hundreds of booming coastal towns that will mushroom overnight.
5. There is another advantage: We need not raise any funds. The merchants will themselves pay for the cargo, freight etc.
6. Lastly, this "idea" came to me during the meet. I had not conceived of such an idea before. So thank you all for stimulating my mind so beautifully.
7. Next on the "Hit List": the excise department.
8. Then, the RTO… and so on and so forth.
9. "Liberty or Death", said Patrick Henry. That should be our battle-cry.
From: Sauvik Chakraverti
1. Since we hold that all solutions lie in the market, and no solutions lie in this State, our political strategy must be one of chipping away at government restrictions and controls: the first of which must be the customs department. Therefore, our first direct political intervention must be aimed at free trade.
2. My idea is simplicity itself: First, we engage in pamphleteering, and circulate Frederic Bastiat's "Candlemakers' Petition" in each and every coastal town on our western seaboard – from Kutch and Porbandar down to Cochin. With the engagement of some local agent provocateurs, the mass of the city will immediately conceive free trade as in their own self-interest – as also their "ancient tradition". Furthermore, they will all see the customs department as an obstruction that should be removed. This widespread "opinion" will be our greatest strength, apart from the clarity of our views. Two other essays of Batsiat against "reciprocity" in trade should be circulated as well. There is also my "Walled-in Ideas: We No Longer Need Economists", about The Wall around the port of Mangalore. Two of my recent "Antidote" columns also endorse free trade with simplicity and clarity. All these should be translated into the local languages and put into the public domain in each and every one of these coastal port cities and towns.
3. Next, we "facilitate" trade between any one of these port cities and Dubai. Merchants in the Indian city will pay for merchandise in Dubai which will be loaded on to a ship called "RAINBOW WARRIOR HAJI MASTAN " that will then set sail for that city. In the meantime, the climate of "opinion" in that city will be one of joy and optimism – that "my ship is coming in". When the ship arrives, I do believe the customs department will get out of the way, as the entire mass of that city approaches the port shouting "Rukawat Hatao". This "event" will be reported in the media.
4. The rest will be the stuff of history: a thousand ships will set sail for all these liberated ports of India; they will be followed by thousands of cargo planes headed for the inland cities and towns. These "merchant ships" will dominate public discourse and the "pirate ship" of the State will steal away from the scene. As was said of one of the last Mughal Emperors: "Poor old Shah Alam / He rules from Delhi to Palam," Instead of "Dilli Chalo" the cry will be "Dilli Chhoro" as the Great Konkan Gold Rush makes people respond to economic incentives and shift bag-and-baggage to the hundreds of booming coastal towns that will mushroom overnight.
5. There is another advantage: We need not raise any funds. The merchants will themselves pay for the cargo, freight etc.
6. Lastly, this "idea" came to me during the meet. I had not conceived of such an idea before. So thank you all for stimulating my mind so beautifully.
7. Next on the "Hit List": the excise department.
8. Then, the RTO… and so on and so forth.
9. "Liberty or Death", said Patrick Henry. That should be our battle-cry.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
THE MORE THE MERRIER
SAUVIK CHAKRAVERTI
I am pasting below an extract from my new book:
NATURAL ORDER - ESSAYS EXPLORING CIVIL GOVERNMENT & THE RULE OF LAW
This extract is from the first chapter that describes the natural order, from a section called 'the more the merrier': that is, a view fundamentally opposed to those neo-Malthusians who declare that humanity faces a 'population problem':
"It needs to be emphasized that the secret of success in the competitive environment of the natural order is to go on adding more and more 'friendly strangers' to the overall order. This can be understood at many levels.
For example: the apple growers of Kulu have very little to gain if they trade their apples among themselves. There are far greater gains to be had if these apples could be sold in far-away cities like Bombay or Calcutta , where no apples grow, and where they are highly prized. If fruiterers in these cities could be included in the Kulu order, gains would significantly increase.
Another example: Suppose we are all competing fruit-sellers in a city market. Do we gain if only our regular local customers drop by? Or do we gain if exceeding numbers of 'friendly strangers' drop by for our wares, people from Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazhakistan and all the other stans, including Pakistan (but friendly strangers only)? If we look deep, in the market, we sellers actually hate each other – we compete relentlessly. Our overall 'community' would be enriched (and our purses too!) only if we add more and more outsiders to it. Xenophobia is devoid of economic logic. It is actually uncivilized.
At another level, the more the number of people in a city, the bigger the market, and the greater the scope for highly specialized niches in the social 'division of labour'. This means more products and services being added to the general pool from which all can draw: that is, greater wealth.
Further, with more and more migrants, local property prices increase, and the city flourishes. The US housing bubble would never explode if the US declared free immigration. Americans would also have domestic help. Thus, a future of competing cities – competing, that is, for citizens – makes complete economic sense. It is this competition that will keep local city governments on their toes, not 'democracy'.
What this means for India is that we have huge gains to make from tourism (the biggest industry in the world) – if we remain friendly with all 'friendly strangers'. Further, we must also welcome foreigners to our real estate markets, encouraging them to settle down within our overall order. Our institutions must protect all individuals, irrespective of faith or nationality. Our country will only gain – in profits as well as real, usable knowledge – if we as a people reject narrow nationalism. Globalization is the way to go." (End of quote)
It follows that if 'friendly strangers' are good for India, then our own children must be made even more welcome, for they are the ones we love, and whom we value more than all material wealth, and who will be our support in old age, better than any pension scheme governments can think up.
Lastly, the california gold rush occurred because of an economic incentive.
Uniulateral free trade will also work like an economic incentive, prompting many people to shift to the coast and build more and more new cities and towns there.
Finally, we Indians will possess 'HABITAT' in what is actually a very beautiful country.
BOOM SHANKAR!
I am pasting below an extract from my new book:
NATURAL ORDER - ESSAYS EXPLORING CIVIL GOVERNMENT & THE RULE OF LAW
This extract is from the first chapter that describes the natural order, from a section called 'the more the merrier': that is, a view fundamentally opposed to those neo-Malthusians who declare that humanity faces a 'population problem':
"It needs to be emphasized that the secret of success in the competitive environment of the natural order is to go on adding more and more 'friendly strangers' to the overall order. This can be understood at many levels.
For example: the apple growers of Kulu have very little to gain if they trade their apples among themselves. There are far greater gains to be had if these apples could be sold in far-away cities like Bombay or Calcutta , where no apples grow, and where they are highly prized. If fruiterers in these cities could be included in the Kulu order, gains would significantly increase.
Another example: Suppose we are all competing fruit-sellers in a city market. Do we gain if only our regular local customers drop by? Or do we gain if exceeding numbers of 'friendly strangers' drop by for our wares, people from Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazhakistan and all the other stans, including Pakistan (but friendly strangers only)? If we look deep, in the market, we sellers actually hate each other – we compete relentlessly. Our overall 'community' would be enriched (and our purses too!) only if we add more and more outsiders to it. Xenophobia is devoid of economic logic. It is actually uncivilized.
At another level, the more the number of people in a city, the bigger the market, and the greater the scope for highly specialized niches in the social 'division of labour'. This means more products and services being added to the general pool from which all can draw: that is, greater wealth.
Further, with more and more migrants, local property prices increase, and the city flourishes. The US housing bubble would never explode if the US declared free immigration. Americans would also have domestic help. Thus, a future of competing cities – competing, that is, for citizens – makes complete economic sense. It is this competition that will keep local city governments on their toes, not 'democracy'.
What this means for India is that we have huge gains to make from tourism (the biggest industry in the world) – if we remain friendly with all 'friendly strangers'. Further, we must also welcome foreigners to our real estate markets, encouraging them to settle down within our overall order. Our institutions must protect all individuals, irrespective of faith or nationality. Our country will only gain – in profits as well as real, usable knowledge – if we as a people reject narrow nationalism. Globalization is the way to go." (End of quote)
It follows that if 'friendly strangers' are good for India, then our own children must be made even more welcome, for they are the ones we love, and whom we value more than all material wealth, and who will be our support in old age, better than any pension scheme governments can think up.
Lastly, the california gold rush occurred because of an economic incentive.
Uniulateral free trade will also work like an economic incentive, prompting many people to shift to the coast and build more and more new cities and towns there.
Finally, we Indians will possess 'HABITAT' in what is actually a very beautiful country.
BOOM SHANKAR!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
BAN COMMUNISM
SAUVIK CHAKRAVERTI
(For Devil's Advocate)
Communists despise private property and idealise commonly held property. But I'll bet Brinda and Prakash Karat don't share a toothbrush! So let us conduct a "reductio" thought experiment as to what would happen in a city or town if private property were abolished and all property declared to be held in common.
Well the first thing that would happen is that everyone would stop working. If someone needed something he would simply go to the house or shop where the object of his desire was located and demand it in the name of communist brotherhood. "How can you refuse me, comrade?" he would ask, "for we are all brothers now." Within a few days of the establishment of the communist fraternity, all shops would be stripped bare, as would be all the mansions of the rich. All economic activity would come to a standstill. The redistribution of all property in the name of communism would lead to the "leveling down" of all the members of the commune. Further, instead of the polite civilization that existed previously, bound by the "natural law" of private property, the commies would soon descend to barbarianism – snatch, grab, loot, scoot.
Observing markets easily reveals the natural law of property at work. When a fisherman returns from the sea, no one forcibly takes fish away from him because the ocean has not furnished him with a title deed to his catch. No one snatches bananas from any of the millions of fruit vendors throughout India – except for cops and monkeys. Look at any big market and you will see thousands engaging in the great game of trade, respecting private property rights. If this natural law was overthrown, man would be reduced to the status of ape, snatching bananas instead of paying for them.
Indian commies do not practice what they preach to the level of the above reductio ad absurdum. They idealise some supposedly commonly held properties, especially the state-owned industrial sector. However, these are all really "private properties" in the control of individuals or groups claiming to represent the public. The minister's official bungalow is his "private property". Wee (sic) the people cannot enter it freely. The PSU is the minister's fiefdom. Neither are "common property" in the sense that the term would be used for a public thoroughfare or a public park, which all can use. Thus, communism is so totally wrong, it should be banned.
(For Devil's Advocate)
Communists despise private property and idealise commonly held property. But I'll bet Brinda and Prakash Karat don't share a toothbrush! So let us conduct a "reductio" thought experiment as to what would happen in a city or town if private property were abolished and all property declared to be held in common.
Well the first thing that would happen is that everyone would stop working. If someone needed something he would simply go to the house or shop where the object of his desire was located and demand it in the name of communist brotherhood. "How can you refuse me, comrade?" he would ask, "for we are all brothers now." Within a few days of the establishment of the communist fraternity, all shops would be stripped bare, as would be all the mansions of the rich. All economic activity would come to a standstill. The redistribution of all property in the name of communism would lead to the "leveling down" of all the members of the commune. Further, instead of the polite civilization that existed previously, bound by the "natural law" of private property, the commies would soon descend to barbarianism – snatch, grab, loot, scoot.
Observing markets easily reveals the natural law of property at work. When a fisherman returns from the sea, no one forcibly takes fish away from him because the ocean has not furnished him with a title deed to his catch. No one snatches bananas from any of the millions of fruit vendors throughout India – except for cops and monkeys. Look at any big market and you will see thousands engaging in the great game of trade, respecting private property rights. If this natural law was overthrown, man would be reduced to the status of ape, snatching bananas instead of paying for them.
Indian commies do not practice what they preach to the level of the above reductio ad absurdum. They idealise some supposedly commonly held properties, especially the state-owned industrial sector. However, these are all really "private properties" in the control of individuals or groups claiming to represent the public. The minister's official bungalow is his "private property". Wee (sic) the people cannot enter it freely. The PSU is the minister's fiefdom. Neither are "common property" in the sense that the term would be used for a public thoroughfare or a public park, which all can use. Thus, communism is so totally wrong, it should be banned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)