Author’s Views: Narrating the Radcliffe Commission and Awards, the author states that in spite of his standing as an eminent citizen of Great Britain, Cyril John Radcliffe became a highly controversial figure as the Chairman of the Boundary Commission to delineate the new boundaries. To ensure neutrality of such a Commission, the author emphasizes that relationship between politics and administration can never be mutually exclusive and there will not be non-partisan administrators to work out the partitioning process. The author further narrates that Jinnah favoured a commission composed of three impartial non-Indians appointed on the recommendation of the United Nations. The Congress (Nehru) opposed Jinnah’s above proposal. Comparing this act of opposition by Nehru, the author remarks that it is ironical that Nehru, as the Prime Minister of India referred in great hurry, poor judgment and due to Lord Mountbatten’s insistence referred the Kashmir issue to the UN.
Comments: I am surprised how the author has overlooked a basic difference. When Nehru referred the J&K Issue to UN, (hasty, ill-judged, goaded or otherwise), India and Pakistan had already become separate Nations and were at war. How can Congress or Nehru ask UN to intervene when in 1947, the nation itself was still under the British and the dispute was between two political entities of a yet to be born free nation? If the dispute was to be referred to UN, it could be initiated only by the British who have still not vacated India! To justify the demand of Jinnah for a UN appointed Commission, the author advances his theory that politics and administration can never be mutually exclusive and the administration can never be just and impartial in a political system in spite of the oft repeated claims to the contrary.
Does the author imply that where in we have the federal structure in place, the administration is overshadowed by politics? The author has been a Minister in the Central Government holding important portfolios for a fairly long period of time and is a Parliamentarian of repute. Does he mean all commissions for arbitrating disputes among the States in India were/are partial and swayed by political considerations? Does the author want the water sharing dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, the border disputes between Maharshtra and Karnataka and the demand for Telengana etc to be referred to UN appointed commissions? The politicians when they become parliamentarians and Executives as ministers take an oath to uphold the Constitution of India and to discharge their duties without any bias or favour. The author might have been swayed by the corroded present day political climate to make such a sweeping conclusion. The British, what ever else they can be accused of, were never faulted for their water- tight separation of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
No comments:
Post a Comment