Freedom First

Summary

Freedom First No. 145 (June 1964) opens under the shadow of Jawaharlal Nehru’s recent death, with a boxed tribute to him printed inside the lead article. The issue mixes domestic policy critique with a foreign-affairs set piece: S. R. Mohan Das assesses Maharashtra’s new liberalised prohibition policy and argues for a ‘temperance’ approach over rigid prohibition; a reprinted Guardian piece by New Zealand’s Ombudsman Sir Guy Powels describes the workings of that new office; M. R. Pai indicts government foodgrain policy, cooperatives, and bureaucratic growth as the real causes of the food crisis; and V. B. Karnik, in the issue’s longest piece, argues for ‘fresh thinking’ on Kashmir in light of Sheikh Abdullah’s release, urging that the people of Kashmir be given a real say rather than reliance on legal formalism about accession. Shorter features include a page of quoted press excerpts under the heading ‘Forecast: Cloudy, Windy’ (mostly Asoka Mehta on the burdens of planning) and a closing miscellany column, ‘With Many Voices’, of quotations from public figures and the press.

Essays

Prohibition and Temperance

By S. R. Mohan Das

S. R. Mohan Das examines the state government’s liberalised prohibition policy announced by Maharashtra’s Chief Minister (Mr. Naik), effective 1 April 1964, and argues that Indian policy continues to conflate prohibition with temperance. He contends prohibition is built on a false dichotomy — total abstinence versus total repeal — that ignores the possibility of regulated, moderate consumption. Drawing on Andrew Sinclair’s account of American Prohibition, he likens Indian prohibitionists to their US counterparts: puritanical, xenophobic toward urban life, and prone to romanticizing rural purity while ignoring rural poverty. He proposes a detailed positive programme: government-run beverage-and-food stalls serving 3.5%-alcohol drinks, a state monopoly on toddy production and quality control (with Haffkines Institute research support), and a strict license/enforcement regime rather than repeal, arguing that both prohibition’s ‘drys’ and repeal’s ‘wets’ generate their own excesses and hypocrisies.

• Maharashtra’s liberalised prohibition policy took effect 1 April 1964 under Chief Minister Naik
• Author argues prohibition and total repeal are both ‘excesses’; the real need is a temperance policy
• Compares Indian prohibition movement to American Prohibition era via Andrew Sinclair’s analysis, citing shared puritanism and rural nostalgia
• Recommends government monopoly on toddy manufacture with alcoholic content capped/verified at 3.5%
• Proposes state-run food-and-beverage stalls to reduce drunkenness by pairing alcohol with food
• Notes working classes and women in working households have benefited materially from prohibition despite its abuses
• Warns that high excise duties, intended for revenue, actually incentivize bootlegging regardless of prohibition’s legal status

Common Justice

By Sir Guy Powels

A reprint from The Guardian (London, 14 May 1964) of extracts from an address by Sir Guy Powels, the New Zealand Ombudsman, reviewing his first 18 months in office. He describes his office’s staffing and caseload (1,100 complaints between October 1962 and March 1964), the kinds of grievances handled — wrongful loss of liberty, property disputes, licensing delays, unjust discretionary decisions — and his investigative process, which relies on departmental cooperation rather than his formal coercive powers. He illustrates the office’s work with case studies (a farmer denied land for his disabled sons, a stalled import licence, a disputed drainage tribunal) and closes by arguing that liberty today is threatened less by external militant ideologies than by the internal ‘suffocation’ of an ever-expanding welfare state, making an independent, persuasive check on government essential.

• Sir Guy Powels, New Zealand’s Ombudsman, reviews his first 18 months in office (Oct 1962-March 1964)
• Handled 1,100 complaints; about half fully investigated, just over 20% (107 cases) upheld as justified
• Describes reliance on informal cooperation with government departments rather than formal coercive powers
• Presents case studies: a farmer with disabled sons denied land by a child welfare department; a drainage-scheme tribunal challenged for bias; a stalled car-import licence
• Argues liberty is threatened today more by internal ‘suffocation’ from welfare-state expansion than by external militant political philosophy
• Concludes the Ombudsman’s role is to check the wrongful use of government’s widening authority while maintaining independence from both executive and judiciary

The Food Crisis-Who Is Responsible?

By M. R. Pai

M. R. Pai examines the food crisis provoked by the Union Government’s Foodgrains Licensing Order, which the trade has resented as impracticable and which triggered strikes and protests (including in Jaipur). He argues that rising foodgrain prices stem from inadequate production relative to rising population and demand, compounded by inflationary deficit financing under the Soviet-style planning model — citing that money supply rose from Rs. 1,848 crores to Rs. 3,690 crores between 1950-52 and February 1964, while public-sector bureaucracy grew from roughly 69 lakhs to 82 lakhs of employees over 1960-63. He presents data on state trading losses (Rs. 12.38 crores lost in 1962-63 alone) and cites the 1964 Audit Report’s findings of gross inefficiency in government wheat-handling at Vishakhapatnam and Madras ports, plus failures among ‘bogus’ cooperative societies. Pai concludes that neither nationalisation of the foodgrains trade nor cooperativisation solves the underlying production problem, and calls instead for treating agriculture as an industry, ending land-ceiling and tenancy disruptions, and improving storage and pest control.

• Foodgrains Licensing Order provoked trade protests and a strike in Jaipur; trade blames government, not itself, for price rises
• Rising prices attributed to population growth plus inflationary deficit financing under Soviet-style planning
• Money supply grew from Rs. 1,848 crores (1950-52) to Rs. 3,690 crores (Feb 1964) while public-sector employment nearly doubled 1960-63
• State trading in foodgrains posted losses of Rs. 12.38 crores (1962-63) and Rs. 10.60 crores (1961-62) per Comptroller and Auditor-General data
• Cumulative state-trading losses since 1943-44 estimated at about Rs. 131 crores; cites gross wastage from underfilled wheat bags at Vishakhapatnam and Madras ports
• Cooperative societies described as often ‘bogus,’ formed for profiteering, with poor audit compliance
• Concludes solution lies in production reform (land ceilings reconsidered, agriculture run as an industry), not nationalisation or forced cooperativisation of trade

Forecast: Cloudy, Windy

A short compilation, ‘Forecast: Cloudy, Windy,’ of quotations attributed to Asoka Mehta (dated February-March 1964) alongside two brief unsigned excerpts from the Times of India (10 April [sic, likely misdated/should read differently in source]) on the difficulties of Indian planning, rising taxation burdens, and the gap between socialist ‘shared vision’ rhetoric and actual consultation with social forces.

• Compiles quotations from Asoka Mehta on the need to accept rising burdens for development and warnings of an annual Rs. 100 crore tax increase
• Includes Mehta’s observation that industrial growth has failed to trigger corresponding agricultural growth
• Times of India excerpts note India’s planning has reached a difficult stage requiring ‘shared vision’ but lacking real consultation with social forces

Kashmir-A Plea For Fresh Thinking

By V. B. Karnik

V. B. Karnik argues for fresh thinking on Kashmir following Sheikh Abdullah’s release from detention and his talks with Nehru and other Indian leaders. Karnik contends the official Indian position — that Kashmir’s accession is final and irrevocable, ratified by the Constituent Assembly and two general elections — does not withstand scrutiny: the Constituent Assembly’s ratification came after Abdullah’s arrest, the elections were largely uncontested one-party affairs, and repression has been a constant feature of Kashmiri political life even under Abdullah’s own rule and more so under Bakshi Ghulam Mohamed. He reviews the historical assurances of a plebiscite given by Gopalswami Ayyangar to the UN Security Council in 1948 and reaffirmed repeatedly, arguing India’s later refusal to hold one undermines its international credibility. He acknowledges the strategic argument that Pakistan’s continued occupation of part of Kashmir complicates any resolution, but insists on separating that from the question of self-determination for Kashmiris. He surveys options: full integration via abrogation of Article 370 (which he argues is opposed by ‘curious’ allies — communists and socialists alongside the Hindu Mahasabha and Jan Sangh) versus a negotiated, region-by-region ascertainment of popular will with international guarantees if the Valley opts for separate status. Karnik closes praising Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri for keeping an open mind, warning that communal forces are gaining strength by wrapping themselves in the language of nationalism and secularism, and framing the issue — following Jayaprakash Narayan — as a moral and political question rather than a legal technicality.

• Written after Sheikh Abdullah’s release from detention and his talks with Nehru; argues India must rethink its official Kashmir position
• Disputes that Constituent Assembly ratification or the 1957/1962 state elections constitute genuine popular endorsement of accession, citing a one-party state and uncontested seats
• Recounts Gopalswami Ayyangar’s 1948 Security Council assurance of an eventual plebiscite and India’s later refusal to honour it
• Distinguishes the legitimate grievance against Pakistan’s occupation from the separate question of Kashmiri self-determination
• Surveys two courses: full integration by abrogating Article 370, versus consultative, region-based ascertainment of popular will with international guarantees for a possibly separate Kashmir Valley
• Notes an unusual alliance of Communists/Socialists with the Hindu Mahasabha and Jan Sangh in demanding Article 370’s abrogation
• Frames Kashmir, following Jayaprakash Narayan, as fundamentally a moral and political issue rather than a legal or technical one
• Warns that communal forces are gaining ground by draping themselves in nationalist and secularist rhetoric while genuine liberal voices (Rajaji, JP) remain few

With Many Voices

The issue’s closing miscellany column, ‘With Many Voices,’ compiles brief quotations from politicians, journalists, and public figures culled from May 1964 press sources, ranging from C. Rajagopalachari’s remarks in Swarajya on Nehru and Indo-Pak amity, to comments by R. D. Birla, Piloo Mody, and others on Indian politics, alongside lighter items (Nancy Astor, H. L. Mencken, King Mahendra) and a note on the omission of an 1830s remark by Maharajah Ranjit Singh from the Tek Chand Report. The masthead notes the issue was edited by Raman Desai and printed at Inland Printers, Bombay, published for the Democratic Research Service by Adam Adil.

• Miscellany of quotations drawn from May 1964 Indian and international press
• C. Rajagopalachari (in Swarajya) calls India’s ‘adventure with democracy’ an ‘expensive disappointment’ and credits only Nehru with being able to secure Indo-Pak sacrifices
• Includes political commentary from R. D. Birla, Piloo Mody, and an anonymous ‘Opinion’ item on Krishna Menon
• Closing item recovers an omitted historical remark attributed to Maharajah Ranjit Singh on censorship of anti-drinking literature
• Masthead: edited by Raman Desai, printed at Inland Printers (55 Gamdevi Road, Bombay 7), published for the Democratic Research Service by Adam Adil

---

Generated by the v1.5 extraction pipeline. Awaiting editorial review.