Read India After Independence: 1947-2000 for Free Online Page B

wrote in 1922: ‘We must first make good the right of free speech and free association . . . We must defend these elementary rights with our lives.’ And again in 1939: ‘Civil liberty consistent with the observance of non-violence is the first step towards
Swaraj.
It is the breath of political and social life. It is the foundation of freedom. There is no room there for dilution or compromise. It is the water of life. I have never heard of water being diluted.’ 2 It thus becomes clear that Gandhiji was fully committed to liberal, democratic values—only he also saw their deficiencies and believed that the existing liberal democratic structure, as prevailing in the West, was not adequate in enabling the people to control the wielders of political power. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in 1936: ‘If civil liberties are suppressed a nation loses all vitality and becomes impotent for anything substantial.’ 3 Further, the resolution on fundamental rights, passed by the Karachi Congress in 1931, guaranteed the rights of free expression of opinion through speech or the Press, and freedom of association.
    The consensus on the practice of non-violence during the national movement also contributed to the creation of a temper of democracy in the country. Discussion, debate and persuasion, backed by public opinion, was emphasized for bringing about political and social change as opposed to glorification of violence which lies at the heart of authoritarianism.
    The defence of civil liberties was also not narrowly conceived in terms of a single group or viewpoint. Political trends and groups otherwise critical of each other and often at opposite ends of the political or ideological spectrum vigorously defended each other’s civil rights. The Moderates—Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea and others—defended the Extremist leader Tilak’s right to speak and write what he liked. And Congressmen, votaries of non-violence, defended Bhagat Singh and other revolutionary terrorists being tried in the Lahore and other conspiracy cases as also the Communists being tried in the Meerut Conspiracy Case. In 1928, the Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill, aimed at suppressing trade unions, the left wing and the Communists, were opposed in the Central Legislative Assembly not only by Motilal Nehru but also by conservatives such as Madan Mohan Malaviya and M.R. Jayakar, besides political spokespersons of the Indian capitalistssuch as Ghanshyam Das Birla and Purshottamdas Thakurdas.
    The basic notions of popular sovereignty, representative government and civil liberties to be exercised even against the rulers were not part of India’s tradition nor were they, as some wrongly hold, ‘the lasting contribution of colonialism.’ It was the national movement and not the bureaucratic, authoritarian colonial state that indigenized, popularized and rooted thein in India. As pointed out in an earlier chapter, the colonial administration and ideologies not only tampered with civil liberties and resisted the nationalist demand for the introduction of a parliamentary system based on popular elections but, from the middle of the nineteenth century, promoted the view that for geographical, historical and sociocultural reasons India was unfit for democracy. It was in opposition to this colonial ideology and practice that the national movement, influenced deeply by democratic thought and traditions of the Enlightenment, succeeded in making democracy and civil liberty basic elements of the Indian political ethos. If free India could start and persist with a democratic polity, it was because the national movement had already firmly established the civil libertarian and democratic tradition among the Indian people. It was this tradition which was reflected in the Indian Constitution and which proved wrong Cassandras who had repeatedly predicted that democracy and civil liberties would not survive in a society so divided by language, religion, caste