Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal. According to the Constitution of India, the role of the Supreme Court is that of a federal court and guardian of the Constitution.

Composition of Supreme Court

Under Article 124(1) the constitution originally provided for 1 Chief Justice of India and not more than 6 other judges. The constitution authorizes the Parliament to provide by law in fixing the Strength of the Supreme Court. The Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) thus accordingly, a Constitutional Amendment Act in 2008 has increased the strength of Supreme Court to 31 (1 Chief Justice + 30 other judges).

Qualification to be a judge of Supreme Court

1. A person must be a citizen of India

2. He/she must have been, for at least five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession

3. Or an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least ten years

4. Or the person must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.

Appointment of Judges of Supreme Court

While appointing the Chief Justice of India the President may consult such judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts as he deems considers it necessary. Thus this clause does not impose any binding on President.

However, while appointing the other Judges of Supreme Court the President shall consult the Chief Justice of India and such other judges of Supreme Court as he may deem it necessary. The President is thus constitutionally obliged to consult the Chief Justice of India.

Regarding the appointment of judges in Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in SP Gupta Vs Union of India 1982 case held that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India expressed under Article 124(2), 217(1) and 222(1) was not binding on the President. It was more consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

However the consultation with the Chief Justice of India shall be effective i.e. all the material facts relating to the persons who are under consideration for appointment as judges shall be made available to the Chief Justice of India. The court also ruled that a judge of the High Court can be transferred from one High Court to another even without his consent.

However in a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in SCARA Vs Union of India 1993 case overruled its earlier decision and explicitly stated the process of appointment of the judges of Supreme Court.

1. The apex court held that the opinion expressed by Chief Justice of India in all the above cases is not his personal opinion but should be considered as the opinion of the entire judiciary. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of India under the above three articles shall enjoy primacy.

2. The Chief Justice of India is the sole authority to initiate the process of appointing the judges of Supreme Court.

3. He shares his authority with the Chief Justice of respective High Courts in appointment and transfer of judges of High Courts.

4. However the Chief Justice of India while forming his opinion shall consult at least two of the senior most judges of the Supreme Court. Such consultations with the other judges shall be formal and in the form of writing.

5. If the President refers the opinion of the Chief Justice of India for his reconsideration with a cogent reasons, then any opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of India after such reconsiderations shall be binding on the President.

6. The Chief Justice of India shall follow the consultation process once again while reconsidering his opinion. Thus the Judiciary emerged as the most important authority in the appointment of the judges.

The Supreme Court in the Re appointment of Judges 1998 act further clarified the legal position on this issue. The Supreme Court stated that:

The opinion of the Chief Justice of India does not constitute consultation under these three articles i.e. Article 124(2), 217(1) and 222(1).He shall have to consult collegiums of Judges while forming his opinion.

In case of appointment of the Judges of Supreme Court and in the transfer of the High Court judges the Chief Justice of India shall consult at least four of the senior most judges of the Supreme Court.

While appointing the judges of the High Courts he shall consult at least two of the senior most Judges of the Supreme Courts.

While appointing and transferring the Judges of High Courts in addition of consulting the senior judges of Supreme Courts.

The Chief Justice of India should also consult the Chief Justice of the respective High Courts.

Jurisdictions of Supreme Court

Original jurisdiction

The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other or between two or more States.

Article 32 of the Constitution grants an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court inregard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of hab eas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them.

Appellate jurisdiction

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Articles 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can also grant special leave under article 136(1) to appeal from a judgment or order of any non-military Indian court.

Parliament has the power to enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and has exercised this power in case of criminal appeals by enacting the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies

Advisory jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution.

Removal of judges of Supreme Court

Article 124(4) provides for the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court. He is removed by the President upon an address by both the Houses of the Parliament supported by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of members present and voting and a majority of total strength of the House on the ground of misbehavior or incapacity. The President shall pass the order of removal in the same session in which the Parliament

passed the resolution.

Article 124(5) confers the power on the Parliament to provide by law for the procedure for the Presentation of an address and for the investigation for proof of misbehavior or incapacity of a judge. Accordingly the Parliament passed Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 which states that a resolution seeking the removal of a judge of Supreme Court can be introduced in either House of Parliament.

It should be supported by not less than 100 member of Lok Sabha.

If it is to be introduced in Rajya Sabha it should be supported by no less than 50 members of Rajya Sabha.

Once the resolution is initiated in either house of the parliament, the presiding officer of that House shall appoint a three member Judicial Committee to investigate into charges and provide proof of misbehavior or incapacity.

The judicial committee shall be headed by a serving judge of the Supreme Court. Second member can be a serving judge of the High Court and the third member can be an eminent jurist.

The Supreme Court in the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability Vs Union of India 1992 case held that the judges (inquiry) Act is constitutionally valid as it merely regulates the powers of the Parliament.

The Court divided the entire process of removal of a judge into two parts mainly Judicial Act and Political Act. Whenever the authority concerned does not enjoy discretionary power it is called Judiciary act and the judge concerned does not enjoy the right to be heard in such cases.

The judicial parts consist of:

1. The presiding officer appointing a three member judicial committee.

2. Judicial committee investigating the charges.

3. The President passing the order of removal of a Judge

Whereas the political parts consist of:

1. Introduction of resolution in Parliament.

2. Houses of Parliament passing the resolution.

The Court also clarified that the Parliament is not bound to pass the resolution even if the judicial committee establish proof of misbehavior or incapacity. However, if the Judicial Committee failed to provide proof of misbehavior or incapacity, the Parliament cannot take up the resolution process further.

Cases of removal of judges in India

In 1992, Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court, who was found guilty by an inquiry committee set up by the Lok Sabha Speaker, could not be removed from office because the Congress members in the House had abstained during voting, leading to the defeat of the motion seeking his removal.

In 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court was found guilty by the inquiry committee set up to investigate the charges against him. While the Rajya Sabha passed the motion to remove him from office, the Lok Sabha did not proceed with the debate and voting on the motion because he had, in the mean time, resigned.

In 2011, Justice Dinakaran's case sets it apart from these two earlier cases, as it is the first time a judge has been allowed to scuttle an inquiry against him by simply resigning.

Judicial Review

Judicial Review means the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to declare a law as unconstitutional and void if it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the constitution to the extent of such inconsistency. The power of judicial review is available to the Court not only against the legislature but also against the executive.

The concept of Judicial Review was originated USA and has been incorporated in the Indian constitution.

However the provision of Judicial Review is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. In so far as the Fundamental Rights are concerned the Judicial Review is explicitly mentioned in Article 13 of the constitution. Further in any Democratic constitution, the government is subjected to in its functioning “The Doctrine of Limited Government”. It is this limitation on the powers of executive and Legislature that

implicitly confers the power of Judicial review on the judiciary.

The powers of Government are limited by various concepts of the constitutions such as supremacy of constitution, division of power between Centre and the State, separation of power etc.

The judiciary while declaring a law as unconstitutional and void does not suggest any remedy or alternative. It is for the government to rectify the deficiency in law as indicated by judicial pronouncement.

While applying the Judicial Review, the judiciary follows following three Principles:

1. Where there are two interpretations, where the first interpretation would make the law valid and the Second interpretation would make the law void, than the Court shall prefer the first over the second and afford the validity of law.

2. Ordinarily the Court shall not pronounce on the legal validity of the act which has not been brought into the legal enforcement.

3. Ordinarily, the Court shall not apply Judicial Review suo-motu (on their own) and shall do so only on the basis of a petition or a reference made by the authority concerned.

Significance of Judicial Review

The Judicial Review has helped in the following ways:

1. Legitimization of the Government’s actions protected by the courts of law against the undue encroachment by the government.

2. Maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.

3. Safeguarding the Fundamental Rights

4. Maintaining the division of power between centre and State.

5. Maintaining the balance among the three organs of the State and the Rule of law.

Realizing the importance of Judicial Review the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Vs Union of India 1980 case held that the Judicial Review is a part of basic structure of the constitution which cannot be destroyed

Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigations may be defined as a litigation that seeks to protect and promote the interests of the public at large.

Public Interest Litigations is a judicial instrument. The basic purpose of which is to achieve public good.

The concept has originated in USA where it is called Social Interest Litigations. The Supreme Court of India has successfully incorporated the concept of Public Interest Litigations into Indian jurisprudence.

Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PIL's in the court.

Public Interest Litigations is purely a Judge made Law and the Judiciary derives powers to issue Public Interest Litigations from its powers of writ jurisdiction and Judicial Review.

Therefore, only the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy the jurisdiction to issue Public Interest Litigations. The objective of the Public Interest Litigations is to provide inexpensive and speedy justice to the people and enforce the legal obligation of legislative and executive towards people and maintains the Rule of Law.

It is generally used to protect and promote the group interest and not individual’s interest for which the Fundamental Rights has been provided.

The rules relating the Public Interest Litigations have been formulated by the Supreme Court:

1. These rules include that any public spirited individual or organization can litigate before the courts under the Public Interest Litigations unless the principle of Locus Standii does not apply.

2. Further the court may waive the payment of regular court fees for litigating before it. The court may also arrange for legal aid in pursuing the case.

3. The court also clarified that even a postcard addressed to the court can be treated as a writ petition interest and Public Interest Litigations can be filed.

4. The court can address the Public Interest Litigations both against the government of states and the government of Union of India.

5. The court may provide relief in the forms of directions or orders including payment of compensation to the effected parties.

Advantages

1. The Public Interest Litigations has helped in increasing awareness among people about their own rights and the role of judiciary in protecting these rights.

2. It is primarily through Public Interest Litigations the court has expended the scope of the Fundamental Rights by interpreting them liberally.

Disadvantages

1. PIL are often misused for filing frivolous cases without investment of heavy court fees as required in private civil litigation.

2. They add to the burden on the judicial process by increasing the number of filed cases, this often overload the courts and delay the judicial processes

3. The lowering of the locus standi requirement has permitted privately motivated interests to pose as public interests.

Development Administration

विकास प्रशासन

विकास प्रशासन (Development Administration) का अर्थ विकास से सम्बन्धित प्रशासन से लिया जाता है। यह सरकार द्वारा योजनाबद्ध तरीके से राष्ट्र के अर्थव्यवस्था मे परिमाणात्मक एवं गुणात्मक बदलाव लाने की दिशा में एक प्रयास है। यह सरकार की उस हर एक गतिविधि का नाम है, जिसमें जन-कल्याण या राष्ट्रीय-विकास निहित है। अतः यह न केवल सामान्य/ नियामकीय प्रशासन (Regulatory Administration) से जुड़ा है अपितु मानवीय जीवन के सभी पहलू- सामाजिक, सांस्कृतिक, आर्थिक इत्यादि भी इससे जुड़े हैं।

परिचय

विकास प्रशासन की अवधारणा विकासशील देशों में लोकप्रशासन के तुलनात्मक अध्ययन की सह-उपज है। इस शब्द का सर्वप्रथम प्रयोग 1995 में यू0 एल0 गोस्वामी ने किया था परन्तु इसे औपचारिक मान्यता उस समय प्राप्त हुई जब अमेरिकन लोक प्रशासन समिति के तुलनात्मक प्रशासन समूह एवं सामाजिक विज्ञान शोध परिषद की तुलनात्मक राजनीति समिति ने इसको बौद्धिक आधार प्रदान किया। इस अवधारणा को लोकप्रिय बनाने में फ्रेड डब्ल्यू0 रिग्स, एडवर्ड डब्ल्यू0 वीडनर, जोसेफ लॉ0 पोलोमबार, अल्बर्ट वाटरसन आदि के नाम प्रमुख हैं।

विकास प्रशासन की अवधारण एशिया, अफ्रीका, एवं लेटिन अमेरिका के दूसरे विश्वयुद्ध के पश्चात् हुए स्वतंत्र देशों के लिए अर्थपूर्ण है। अपने औपनिवेशिक शासकों से स्वतन्त्रता प्राप्त करने के उपरांत इन देशों में अविकसित अर्थव्यवस्था से विकसित अर्थव्यवस्था की ओर जाने के प्रयास आरम्भ किये गए। विकास के क्रम से गुजरते हुए इन देशों को विकासशील देश कहा गया जिनके सम्मुख विकास सम्बन्धी अनेक समस्याएँ थी। उनका प्रमुख कार्य नियोजित परिवर्तन द्वारा सामाजिक-आर्थिक बदलाव लाना था। परम्परागत लोक प्रशासन, प्रशासन प्रणाली के सुधार से संबंधित था अतएव लोक प्रशासन के एक नये स्वरूप को विकसित करने की आवश्यकता अनुभव की गई जो विकासशील देशों की सामाजिक-आर्थिक एवं प्रशासनीय समस्याओं के अध्ययन पर ध्यान केन्द्रित करेगा। इस प्रकार, विकास प्रशासन के विचार को संकल्पना की गई।

उदय के कारण

(१) सन् 1950 और 1960 के दशकों के दौरान लोक प्रशासन के विद्वानों ने लोक प्रशासन के पारंपरिक दृष्टिकोणों जिनमें पाश्चात्य मूल्य उन्मुख था, प्रकृति के प्रति काफी अंसतोष व्यक्त किया। विद्वानों को सूचना के एक मात्रा आधार के रूप में अमरीकी अनुभव पर लोक प्रशासन संबंधी अध्ययनों की अत्यधिक निर्भरता से भी असंतोष था। अतः मिल-जुलकर इसका यह अर्थ था कि सारी बात को अमरीकी मूल्य तंत्र से आँका जाता है जिस तंत्र में तीसरे विश्व और साम्यवादी देशों के बारे में मूल्यभारित (पूर्वाग्रहयुक्त) विचार रहता है।

(२) द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध के बाद अनेक अफ्रीकी और एशियाई देश स्वतंत्र हो गए और वे सामाजिक-आर्थिक, राजनीतिक एवं प्रशासनिक विकास के विभिन्न चरणों में थे। चूंकि इन देशों का प्रशासन अनिवार्यतः विकास उन्मुख था। अतः विद्वानों में इन देशों के प्रशासन का अध्ययन करने की उत्सुकता पनपी। उनका अध्ययन वस्तुतः विकास प्रशासन का अध्ययन बन गया।

(३) द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध के बाद के युग में संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ की कई एजेंसियाँ एवं संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका और सोवियत संघ की सरकारें इन नए उभरते राष्ट्र राज्यों को भरपूर तकनीकी सहायता देने मे जुट गई। अमरीका और सोवियत संघ द्वारा इन देशों को ऐसी सहायता देने का प्रयोजन संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ में अपनी-अपनी ओर उनका समर्थन प्राप्त करना था। इन प्रोद्यौगिक कार्यक्रमों में जुटे विशेषज्ञों ने शीघ्र ही महसूस कर लिया कि पश्चिमी देशों की प्रशासनिक संरचनाएँ एवं सिद्धांत इन देशों के लिए भी उपयुक्त हों, कोई आवश्यक नहीं है। इन देशों को दी जानेवाली सहायता का उचित उपयोग करने में उन्हें समर्थ बनाने की विधियों की खोज करने के उद्देश्य से उनके प्रशासन तंत्रों का अध्ययन करने की आवश्यकता थी।

(३) विकास प्रशासन की उत्पत्ति अमरीकी व्यवहारपूरक विज्ञानों से हुई है। राजनीति शास्त्र में व्यवहारपरक क्रांति से प्रोत्साहित होकर लोक प्रशासन ने भी तुलनात्मक लोक प्रशासन के क्षेत्र में व्यवहारपरक अध्ययनों पर बल दिया जिसका अर्थ विकास प्रशासन में प्रशासन की भूमिका का अध्ययन भी था। यद्यपि उनका उद्देश्य परिस्थिति पर बल देते हुए केवल लोक प्रशासन का अध्ययन करना था किंतु इसके कारण स्वाभाविक तौर पर विकास प्रशासन के भी अध्ययन हुए।

(५) तीसरे विश्व के देशों मे समय और प्राकृतिक संसाधनों की काफी कमी थी जबकि उनकी आवश्यकता तुरंत और तीव्र सामाजिक आर्थिक विकास की थी। ये लक्ष्य निष्क्रिय प्रशासन की सहायता से नहीं प्राप्त किए जा सकते थे जो बंद और यथास्थितिवादी था। अतः एक ऐसे प्रशासन तंत्र की आवश्यकता महसूस की गई जो विकसित देशों के प्रशासनिक ढाँचे से भिन्न हो और इस प्रकार विकास प्रशासन की संकल्पना का आविर्भाव हुआ।

परिभाषाएँ

विकास प्रशासन की विद्वानों द्वारा दी गयी कुछ परिभाषाएँ निम्नलिखित हैं-

प्रो॰ वीडनर के अनुसार, “विकास प्रशासन राजनीतिक, आर्थिक और सामाजिक प्रगति के लिए संगठन का मार्गदर्शन करता है। यह मुख्य रूप से एक कार्योन्मुख एंव लक्ष्योन्मुख प्रशासनिक प्रणाली पर जोर देता हैं।

प्रो॰ रिग्स ने इसके सम्बन्ध में कहा है कि “विकास प्रशासन का सम्बन्ध कार्यक्रमों के प्रशासन, बड़े संगठनों विशेषकर सरकार की प्रणालियों, विकास लक्ष्यों की उपलब्धि के लिए नीतियों ओर योजनाओं को क्रियान्वित करने से हैं।[1]

डोनाल्ड सी0 स्टोन का कहना है कि “विकास प्रशासन निर्धारित लक्ष्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए संयुक्त प्रयास के रूप में सभी तत्त्वों और साधनों (मानवीय और भौतिक) का सम्मिश्रण है। इसका लक्ष्य निर्धारित समयक्रम के अन्तर्गत विकास के पूर्व-निर्धारित उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति है।

उपरोक्त परिभाषाओं में भिन्नता के बावजूद भी यह देखते को मिलता है कि विकास प्रशासन लक्ष्योन्मुखी और कार्योन्मुखी है। परिभाषाओं के विश्लेषण के बाद विकास प्रशासन के सम्बन्ध में निम्नलिखित तत्त्व सामने आते हैं-

•             विकास प्रशासन निरन्तर आगे बढ़ने की एक गतिशील प्रक्रिया है।

•             निर्धारित लक्ष्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए यह एक संयुक्त प्रयास है।

•             यह तीसरी दुनिया की विभिन्न समस्याओं का समाधान करने का महत्त्वपूर्ण साधन है।

•             यह पिछड़े समाज के परिवर्तन, आधुनिकीकरण और विकास के लिए शासन-तन्त्र है।

तदपि परम्परागत प्रशासन एवं विकास प्रशासन के मध्य मुख्य विभेदक निम्नलिखित हैं-

परम्परगत प्रशासन    विकास प्रशासन

नियामक एवं प्रशासकीय      अंगीकरणीय एवं गतिशील

दक्षता/मितव्ययिता अभिमुखी  वृद्धि अभिमुखी

कार्य अभिमुखी संबंध अभिमुखी

पदसोपानात्मक संरचना नमनीय एवं परिवर्तनशील

केन्द्रीयकृत निर्णय निर्माण    सहभागीय निर्णय निर्माण

प्रस्थिति अभिमुखी    भविष्य अभिमुखी

विकास प्रशासन एवं प्रशासनिक विकास

दोनों अवधारणाऐं एक-दूसरे से पूरी तरह सम्बन्धित किन्तु भिन्न हैं। विकास प्रशासन का अर्थ विकास कार्यक्रमों की व्यवस्था है जबकि प्रशासनिक विकास का अर्थ है कि प्रशासकीय तन्त्र को कुशल, सक्षम तथा प्रभावी बनाना। समाज कल्याण या साक्षरता के लिये जो तन्त्र कार्य कर रहा है वह विकास प्रशासन है और समाज कल्याण प्रशासन को सुगठित करना व उद्देश्य के अनुकूल बनाना प्रशासनिक विकास है। प्रशासनिक विकास केवल विकास प्रशासन तक सीमित नहीं है। सामान्य प्रशासन के विकास को भी प्रशासकीय विकास कहेंगे। उदाहरण के तौर पर ब्रिटिश शासन के अन्तर्गत पुलिस की जो कार्य पद्धति थी वह लोकतन्त्र के अनुकूल नही है। उसे अनुकूल बनाना प्रशासकीय विकास होगा।

प्रो॰ रिग्स के अनुसार विकास प्रशासन का विकसित किया जाना बहुत जरूरी है क्योंकि इसके बिना विकास का लक्ष्य प्राप्त नहीं किया जा सकता। क्षमताहीन प्रशासन विकास कार्य नहीं कर सकता। साथ ही प्रशासकीय विकास के लिए आवश्यक है कि पर्यावरण (सांस्कृतिक, सामाजिक, आर्थिक व राजनैतिक) का विकास किया जाये क्योंकि विकास प्रशासन को पर्यावरण की सर्वाधिक प्रभावित करता है। विकास प्रशासन तथा प्रशासनिक विकास के बीच परस्पर निर्भरता का सम्बन्ध है।

विकास प्रशासन का महत्त्व

विकास प्रशासन में प्रशासन के पारंपरिक उपागमों की तुलना में कई लाभदायक गुण हैं जैसे-

(१) विकास प्रशासन विकास की समस्याओं एवं इनके निदान के आवश्यक उपायों का व्यापक विश्लेषण करने के एक साधन की तरह कार्य करता है। इसके पूर्व विकास एवं कल्याण सरकारी कार्य-क्षेत्र में नहीं आते थे।

(२) विकास प्रशासन लोक प्रशासन के विकास में एक बहुत महत्त्वपूर्ण तथ्य है। इसने लोक प्रशासन के क्षेत्र में लोकनीति, इसका कार्यान्वयन एवं मूल्योन्मुख लाकर लोक प्रशासन की सीमाओं को विस्तृत किया है।

(३) कार्यरत प्रशासकों और शिक्षाविदों के लिए इसका प्रत्यक्ष महत्त्व है। क्योंकि वे लोक ही विकास की समस्याओं एवं विकास प्रक्रिया द्वारा उत्पन्न समस्याओं में प्रत्यक्ष रूप से उलझे हैं।

(४) विकास प्रशासन ने पश्चिमी मॉडल की अपर्याप्तताओं की ओर विद्वानों ने पश्चिमी मॉडल की अपर्याप्तताओं की ओर विद्वानों का ध्यान सफलतापूर्वक आकृष्ट किया है और विकास कार्यों के संदर्भ में उनकी अपर्यान्तता साबित की है। अतः इसने तुलनात्मक लोक प्रशासन के तुलनात्मक अध्ययनों के साथ-साथ लोक प्रशासन के सिद्धांत और व्यवहार की सर्विकता पर विचार खंडित किया है।

(५) विकास प्रशासन प्रशासनिक तंत्र पर संस्कृति के प्रभाव को भी मानता हैं और इसलिए विकास के राजनीतिक, आर्थिक एवं सामाजिक-सांस्कृतिक पक्षों के तुल्यकालन एवं समक्रमण पर बल देता है।

(६) पश्चिमी मॉडलों की अपर्याप्तता को उजागर करते हुए व्यवहारों प्रशासन उनकी प्रशासनिक विधियों एवं व्यवहारों की अपर्यान्तताओं को भी उजागर करता है। चूंकि पश्चिमी मॉडल पूरब में प्रयोज्य नहीं रहे, अतः विकास प्रशासन देशज प्रशासनिक विधियों के विकास का समर्थन करता हैं। उदाहरण के लिए भारत ने विकास का पंचायती राजमांड अपनाया है तो उसकी अपनी विधि है।

(७) विकास प्रशासन, प्रशासन के मानव कारकों पर ध्यान केंन्द्रित करता है। जिनकी पहले उपेक्षा की जा रही थी। यह इस अर्थ मे अधिक लोकतांत्रिक है कि यह निचले स्तर से विचारों को प्रवाह एंव विकास प्रक्रिया में लोगों की भागीदारी भी प्रोत्साहित करता है जो कि विकास प्रशासन की सफलता के लिए अनिवार्य है।

विशेषताएँ

विकास प्रशासन सरकार का कार्यात्मक पहलू है जो लक्ष्योन्मुखी होता हैं विकास प्रशासन केवल जनता के लिए प्रशासन नहीं है बल्कि यह जनता के साथ कार्य करने वाला प्रशासन है। संक्षेप, मे विकास प्रशासन की निम्नलिखित विशेषताएँ हैं-

(१) परिवर्तनशील : विकास प्रशासन का केन्द्रबिन्दु परिवर्तनशीलता है। यह परिवर्तन सामाजिक, आर्थिक और राजनीतिक है। विकासशील देशों में प्रशासन को निरन्तर परिवर्तनों के दौर से गुजरना पड़ता है। इस प्रकार परिवर्तनशीलता विकास प्रशासन की बहुमूल्य पूँजी है जिसके सहारे वह सक्रिय बना रहता है।

(२) विकासात्मक प्रकृति: फेनसोड ने ठीक ही कहा है कि विकास प्रशासन नवीन सुधारों तथा अभिनवकरणों पर निर्भर करता है। इसकी प्रकृति विकासात्मक कार्यक्रमों को लेकर चलने की होती हैं। इसका प्रमुख उद्देश्य सामाजिक, आर्थिक और राजनीतिक दृष्टिकोण से पिछडे़ समाज का विकास करना है।

(३) प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्यों से सम्बन्धित विकास प्रशासन जन-आकांक्षाओं की पूर्ति के प्रति प्रयन्तशील रहता है। साथ ही विकास प्रशासन प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्यों से सम्बद्ध रहता है, क्योंकि इसमें मानव अधिकारों और मूल्यों के प्रति सम्मान, जनहित का उद्देश्य तथा उत्तरदायित्व की भावना निहित रहती है। चूँकि विकास प्रशासन का सम्बन्ध सरकारी प्रशासन द्वारा किये जाने वाले प्रयासों से है और सरकारी प्रयास जनकल्याण और प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्यों से जुड़े रहते हैं, अतः विकास प्रशासन द्वारा किये जाने वाले प्रयासों से है और सरकारी प्रयास जनकल्याण और प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्यों से जुड़े रहते हैं, अतः विकास प्रशासन को प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्यों से पृथक नहीं किया जा सकता।

(४) आधुनिकीकरण: विकासशील देशों के विकास के लिए आधुनिक दृष्टिकोण अपनाना अवश्यक हो गया है। साथ ही आज के आधुनिक उद्देश्यों को प्राप्त करने हेतु विकास प्रशासन को अपने आपको योग्य बनाना पड़ता है। इसके लिए प्रशासनिक आधुनिकीकरण को बढ़ावा देना पड़ता है। प्रशासनिक आधुनिकीकरण के लिए विकास प्रशासन विकसित देशों से मापदण्ड और तकनीक प्राप्त करता हैं।

(५) प्रशासनिक कुशलता: कुशलता प्रशासन की सफलता की कुंजी है। विकास प्रशासन में प्रशासनिक कुशलता को इसलिए महत्त्व दिया जाता है कि इसके अभाव में विकास के उद्देश्यों को सफलतापूर्वक प्राप्त करना सम्भव नहीं है। विकास प्रशासन इस बात के लिए निरन्तर प्रयत्नशील रहता है कि प्रशासनिक विकास के माध्यम से प्रशासन की कार्यकुशलता में वृद्धि की जाये।

(६) आर्थिक विकास : आर्थिक विकास और विकास प्रशासन का परस्पर महत्त्वपूर्ण सम्बन्ध है। प्रशासनिक विकास के लिए आर्थिक विकास भी आवश्यक हैं। विकासशील देशों की विभिन्न आर्थिक योजनाएं एवं विकास सम्बन्धी कार्यक्रम विकास प्रशासन के सहयोग से ही लागू किये जाते हैं। विकास प्रशासन ऐसे प्रशासनिक संगठन की रचना करता है जो देश की आर्थिक प्रगति को सम्भव बनाता है तथा आर्थिक विकास के लिए मार्ग प्रशस्त करता है। राष्ट्र के विकास के लिए आर्थिक योजनाएँ अत्यन्त महत्त्वपूर्ण होती हैं और उन्हें लागू करने मे विकास प्रशासन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाता हैं

(७) परिणामोन्मुखी: विकास प्रशासन का परिणामोन्मुखी होना इसकी एक अन्य महत्त्वपूर्ण विशेषता है। विकास प्रशासन से यह अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह निर्धारित सीमा के अन्तर्गत कार्यों को सम्पन्न करें और परिणाम अच्छे हों। इसमें परिणाम को अधिक महत्त्व दिया जाता हैं

कार्यक्षेत्र

विकास प्रशासन लोक प्रशासन की एक नवीन विस्तृत शाखा हैं। इसका जन्म विकासशील देशों की नयी-नयी प्रशासनिक योजनाओं तथा कार्यक्रमों को लागू करने के सन्दर्भ में हुआ हैं इसके क्षेत्र में लोक प्रशासन के वे सभी कार्य आ जाते हैं जो नीतियों, योजना, कार्यक्रमों के निर्माण से सम्बन्धित हैं। संक्षेप में, इसके क्षेत्र में वे समस्त, गतिविधियाँ आती हैं जो सामाजिक, राजनीतिक, आर्थिक, ओद्योगिक तथा प्रशासनिक विकास से सम्बन्धित हों और जो सरकार द्वारा संचालित की जाती हों। जिस प्रकार विकास के क्षेत्र को निर्धारित करना सम्भव नहीं है, उसी प्रकार विकास प्रशासन के क्षेत्र को निर्धारित करना सम्भव नहीं है। इसके क्षेत्र का अध्ययन निम्नलिखित शीर्षकों के अन्तर्गत किया जा सकता है-

(१) पोस्डकॉर्ब सिद्धान्त : चूँकि विकास प्रशासन लोक प्रशासन का ही विस्तृत अंग है इसलिए लूथर गुलिक द्वारा प्रतिपादित पोस्डकॉर्ब सिद्धान्त (POSTCORB) विकास प्रशासन के क्षेत्र के लिए प्रासंगिक है। यह शब्द निम्नलिखित शब्दों से बना हैः

Planning (नियोजन), Organisation (संगठन), Staffing (कर्मचारी), Direction (निर्देशन),

Coordination (समन्वय), Reporting (प्रतिवेदन), तथा Budgeting (बजट)।

इन सभी सिद्धान्तों की विकास प्रशासन में आवश्यकता पड़ती है।

(२) प्रशासनिक सुधार एवं प्रबन्धकीय विकास : इन दोनों का विकास प्रशासन में अत्यन्त महत्त्व होता है इसलिए प्रशासनिक सुधार एवं प्रबन्धकीय विकास पर अधिक ध्यान दिया जाता है। प्रशासन के संगठनों मे हमेशा सुधार की आवश्यकता पड़ती है। प्रशासकीय सुधार का मुख्य उद्देश्य है जटिल कार्यो और प्रक्रियाओं को सरल बनाना तथा उन नियमों का निर्माण करना जिनसे न्यूनतम श्रम एंव व्यय करके अधिकतम उत्पादक परिणाम प्राप्त किये जा सकें। इसके लिए समय-समय पर विभिन्न आयोग एवं समितियाँ गठित की जाती हैं तथा प्रशासनिक सुधार के सम्बन्ध में इनके प्रतिवेदन माँगे जाते हैं।

(३) लोक सेवकों के लिए प्रशिक्षण : विकास प्रशासन को नवीन योजनाओं, विशेषीकरण तथा जटिल प्रशासनिक कार्यक्रमों को लागू करना पड़ता है। ऐसे कार्यों को सम्पन्न करने के लिए विकास प्रशासन को अनुकूल लोक सेवकों की आवश्यकता पड़ती है। इसके लिए लोक सेवकों को प्रशिक्षण हेतु विभिन्न प्रकार के विशेषीकृत प्रशिक्षण संस्थानों में भेजा जाता है, जहाँ उन्हें प्रशासकीय समस्याओं और संगठनात्मक प्रबन्ध आदि के विषय में बताया जाता हैं इस प्रकार समय के साथ बदली हुई आधुनिक परिस्थितियों के अनुकूल अपने लोक सेवकों को प्रशिक्षित करना विकास प्रशासन कर महत्त्वपूर्ण कार्य है।

(४) आधुनिक प्रबन्धकीय तकनीक का प्रयोग : विकास प्रशासन का एक महत्त्वपूर्ण कार्य उन नवीन प्रबन्धकीय तकनीकों की खोज करना है जिनसे विकास कार्यक्रमों में कार्यकुशलता बढ़ायी जा सके। इस सम्बन्ध में विकसित देशों में अपनाये जाने वाले नवीन प्रबन्धकीय तरीकों को लागू करना चाहिए।

(५) विकास के कार्यक्रम : जैसा कि विदित है, विकास प्रशासन का एक महत्त्वपूर्ण कार्य ग्रामीण एवं शहरी विकास के कार्यक्रमों को लागू करना है। भारत जैसे विकासशील देशों के लिए अनेक योजनाएँ एवं कार्यक्रम लागू किये जाते है। इन्हें आधुनिक तकनीकी के माध्यम से जन-जन तक पहुँचाना विकास प्रशासन का महत्त्वपूर्ण कार्य है।

(६) जन सम्पर्क का सहयोग : प्रशासन का उद्देश्य जनहित होता है अतः विकास सम्बन्धी कार्यक्रमों को लागू करने के लिए जन सहयोग एवं जन सम्पर्क अत्यन्त आवश्यक है। इससे स्पष्ट होता है कि विकास प्रशासन मे जन सम्पर्क और जन सहयोग का विशेष महत्त्व है। वास्तव में जन सम्पर्क के द्वारा यह जाना जा सकता है कि जो जनकल्याण सम्बन्धी कार्यक्रम चलाये जा रहे हैं उनका लाभ आम जनता तक पहुँचता है या नहीं तथा जनता की उनके प्रति क्या प्रतिक्रिया होती है। विकास प्रशासन के लिए जन सहयोग न केवल आवश्यक है बल्कि इसके अभाव में सफलता सम्भव नहीं है।

(७) आर्थिक, सामाजिक व राजनीतिक ढाँचे का विकास : वस्तुतः आर्थिक, सामाजिक व राजनीतिक विकास सम्बन्धी कार्य विकास प्रशासन की रीढ़ होते हैं। इस दिशा में कार्य करना चुनौतीपूर्ण होती है। परम्परागत संरचनाओं की कमियों और प्रक्रियाओं को सुधार कर उनकी जगह नवीन प्रकार के आर्थिक व सामाजिक ढाँचे का निर्माण करना विकास प्रशासन के सामने एक बहुत जटिल कार्य बन गया है। इन संरचनाओं का विकास व सुधार करना आवश्यक हो जाता है। इस प्रकार विकास प्रशासन के क्षेत्र में आर्थिक, सामाजिक तथा राजनीतिक ढाँचे का विकास करना एक महत्त्वपूर्ण कार्य है।

उपरोक्त बातों के अतिरिक्त विकास प्रशासन के क्षेत्र में क्षेत्रीय विकास परिषदें, सामुदायिक सेवाएँ, प्रबन्ध कार्यक्रम, अन्तराष्ट्रीय सहयोग आदि बातों का भी अध्ययन किया जाता है। जैसे-जैसे सरकार के विकास सम्बन्धी कार्यक्रम बढ़ते जाते हैं, विकास प्रशासन का क्षेत्र भी विस्तृत होता जाता है।

1946 BOMBAY MUTINY- THE REVOLT THAT COMPELLED INDIAN INDEPENDENCE

Often the great struggles against oppression are drilled deep into insignificance by the capitalist historians. The 1946 uprising of the Royal Indian Navy also known as the ‘Bombay mutiny’ is a remarkable example of such a struggle. The then British Raj repressed the upsurge with the support of the privileged sections of India, which now as a fully blown up state establishment with its strings in the hands of big business corporations continuing the cover-up act of that spirited struggle. At the same time it’s also the lack of determined leadership of the working class in not leading the historic revolt through a revolutionary path seizing the working class the political power to smash the shackles of oppression forever!

The Bombay Mutiny is a watershed event in the pre independence Indian history which having played an important role in its national liberation also shaped the conception of modern Indian state which amidst of severe poverty and social crises celebrating its 68th anniversary of independence from British rule.

Imperialism and the rising national struggle

Mutinies of its armed men are nightmares for any ruling class. Less than 100 years, the 1946 uprising of the naval ratings, the ‘Sepoys’ (Indian infantry Soldiers) revolted against the East India Company.

The East India Company, originally a joint-stock firm to trade in the East Indies became a mega-corporation nearly monopolising the actual governance of large areas of the sub-continent. The direct consequence for those deprived masses under the ‘Company Raj’ is naked super-exploitation. Great famines, discontented masses, peasant uprisings, frequent conflicts from the dispossessed rulers of the princely states, increased militarisation, colonial expeditions, heavy handedness with the abuse of the ‘Sepoys’ as mere cannon fodder and many other fuelling factors lead to the first major revolt across India. It sparked off a great demonstration of unity amongst Hindus and Muslims. Patriots hailed the revolt as the ‘First War of independence’ whereas the Company reported it as the ‘Sepoy Mutiny’.

The imperialist masters are keen to use the terminologies like ‘mutiny’ ‘coup’ etc., to refer any resistance essentially to gloss it with a character of spontaneity but primarily to mask the underlying class antagonisms. Interestingly Marx while reporting this significant anti-colonial struggle of the 19th century in the New York Daily Tribune declared the 1857 uprising as a ‘national revolt’! Consequently the administration of colonial India was taken up by the British Crown from the Company’s rule.

Amidst of the growing anti-colonial sentiments there was a surge in national consciousness further unifying Hindus and Muslims. The ‘Raj’ subsequently had institutionalised the policy of ‘divide and rule’ to perpetually weaken the resisting forces which nevertheless flared off heavy agitations against the regime.

Meanwhile the landlords and the capitalist classes of British India were actively securing their interests in politics and took the leadership early on in the Indian National Congress (INC) which was on the forefront of the freedom struggle rallying behind them millions of people! Patriotism found its fertile terrain amongst wants and deprivation. The struggle for national independence galvanised the desperate masses to fight the wretched conditions of their existence and this was unscrupulously abused by the emerging national bourgeois’ whose interests are intrinsically linked with the landlords; and to some extent with the colonial masters itself!

The Colonial Question and permanent revolution:

Lenin who declared imperialism as the highest stage of capitalist development, lead an unrelenting struggle in the Second Internationalⁱ against all kinds of opportunisms including the colonial question and affirmed the importance of the liberation of oppressed nations. The theory of permanent revolution by Trotsky exposes the inability of the bourgeoisie in the backward countries to overthrow imperialism, to lead the democratic revolution, liquidating feudalism and its perils. In ‘an Open Letter to the Workers of India’ Trotsky clearly outlined “for an independent Indian republic is indissolubly linked up with the agrarian revolution, with the nationalization of banks and trusts, with a number of other economic measures aiming to raise the living standard of the country and to make the toiling masses the masters of their own destiny. Only the proletariat in an alliance with the peasantry is capable of executing these tasks.”

Political Trends

The Communist Party of India (CPI) formed to lead the toiling masses towards a revolutionary path was nevertheless in its early days ridden with organisational difficulties and in practice several loose groups nationally working without adequate coordination and heavily suppressed by the colonial authorities. Notwithstanding the heroic sacrifices of the rank and file in leading the struggles of peasants and the workers, the leadership of the Communist Party of India lacked the resoluteness and the consistent vision of the revolutionary task of the Indian proletariat and later succumbed to Stalinist Comintern.

World War II furthermore exposed the political bankruptcy of the degenerated Comintern and its influence on the mass workers’ organisations. The opportunist diktats of the Comintern influenced the CPI’s strategy to subordinate the struggle to British Imperialism and after the world war handing over the leadership of the independence struggle to the Congress and the Muslim League parties. The unyielding program of Stalinist CPI failed to specifically consider the contradictions and the peculiarities of India. Into that vacuum poured social reformist mass movements lead by Ambedkar, Periyar etc.

After the Stalinist degeneration of the Third International (Comintern) by the rise of bureaucracy, Trotsky and his supporters in 1938 formed the Fourth International to continue the struggle of the international working-class. The Bolshevik Leninist Party of India (BLPI) formed in 1942 by the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP)and Indian Trotskyist leaders. Political circumstances in India unlike in Sri Lanka lacked the subjective factors which had propelled the Trotskyist Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) in Sri Lanka as a mass party of toilers and workers’ in Sri Lanka. Moreover the role played by the Indian National Congress particularly Gandhianⁱⁱ leadership in misleading and reducing the mass movements within the confines of landlordism and capitalism.

Also the ossified religious and social traditions were off-shooting reactionary political developments, with the Hindu and Muslim establishment parties and organisations consolidating; the monstrosity of which will be orchestrated during the partition of India tearing its social fabric forever.

Mighty revolutionary waves swept across the world on the aftermath of the Second World War and this along with the threat of Stalinism subsequently forced huge concessions from the bourgeoisie across the world. In India the small forces of Trotskyists nonetheless boldly intervened and supported the rising tide of workers and peasants struggles.

Amidst huge political upheavals of the ‘Quit India movement’ the British ruling class organised the trials of the officers of the Indian national Army (INA).

Indian National Army (INA) was led by Nethaji Subhas Chandra Bose a militant nationalist leader. It followed the tactics of fighting British imperialism by appealing to its adversary imperialists. INA got the support of the axis powers but after its defeat in the war, more than 11,000 INA soldiers were imprisoned and the INA officers were put into trials for waging a war against the British sovereign. However the masses esteemed the gallantry of the Indian National Army and its leader, Subhas Chandra Bose. The INA trials shook the consciousness of hundreds and thousands of patriotic Indians, penetrating into the souls and the lives of Indian soldiers serving imperialism.

The fatigue of War

Even after the Second World War, there were nearly five million men and women in the British armed services. The imperialist anxiety of stationing troops to secure its colonial territories were in direct contrast to the grievances of soldiers particularly over the conditions of slow demobilisation of their troops back home. In 1946 January the Royal Air Force (RAF) mutiny involving more than 50,000 men in over 60 RAF stations in India and South Asia shows the levels of discontent amongst the soldiers.

War a test of conditions, brings into sharp conflicts the patriotic fervour flowing from the reactionary propaganda of one nation. The encountering brutalities force the soldiers to question the established order, thrusting them with bloody savagery, especially in navy ships amongst gruelling conditions.

Reportedly between March 1942 and April 1946 there were more than fifteen mutinies just in the Royal Indian navy (RIN)!

Although often the immediate issues were the appalling conditions including the poor quality of food, the reasons behind those revolts are deeply ingrained and flowed from the systematic oppression they been subjected to over the years.

Indeed with over 20,000 sailors across 78 ships, and 20 bases on land involving strategic areas, the February 1946 Great naval revolt decisively shook “the empire on which the sun never sets”!

Naval Central strike committee

If it was the maggot-ridden meat and the ruthless superior officers that triggered the great mutiny of the Russian battleship Potemkinpreluding the Russian Revolution of 1905, it was the watered down curry and the racial abuse of the arrogant British officers sparked off this naval mutiny!

On the 18^th February 1946, 1100 naval personnel of the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) signal training ship HMIS Talwar declared strike. A Naval Central Strike Committee was elected with M.S. Khan as the president and Madan Singh the vice-president.

A committee is an efficient structure to organise activities in a structured and persistent manner. Systematically developed by the bourgeoisie, those committee formations are not free from the fetters of capitalism with its crucial limitations due to the exclusivity, hierarchal structure and the intrinsic lack of democracy. On the contrary through independent democratic workers control, the committee will be an organisation of true solidarity, with a wide range of collective initiatives. The leadership provided by the most resolute and dedicated layers of the workers committees’ will result in a combativeness that will take any estimation by sheer surprise!

Straightaway the Strike Committee knocked off the ‘Royal’ prefix and called themselves the ‘Indian National Navy’ and framed acharter of demands calling the release of all the political prisoners, the withdrawal of Indian troops from Indonesia and Egypt, for immediate improvement in their conditions, and the provision of equal status with the British officers. The charter was passed by the committee in the midst of huge support and cheers from their fellow sailors. Swift communication established with the rest of the naval command and the naval strike committee formed by those in operations brought the state of affairs under the complete control of its lower-deck democracy!

In an interview to the Tribune (Chandigarh), the vice president of the strike committee, Madan Singh recalled those events with its magnitude “We did this with the help of the wireless system under our control. We were able to win over almost all the 70 ships and all the 20 seashore establishments. We had secured control over the civilian telephone exchange, the cable network and, above all, over the transmission centre at Kirkee manned by the Navy, which was the channel of communication between the Indian Government and the British.” In that interview Madan Singh also said “on February 20 and 21, we gave a call for a general strike which evoked a tremendous response. It was perceived as a challenge to the Government’s authority.”

The needs of World War II hysterically fed the growth of the Royal Indian Navy to a considerable force capable of a great level of co-ordination, which can be threaten any military might!

Stormy days!

With the slogans of independence, hoisting of the Indian Tricolour flags on the ships and naval establishments, the revolt had inspired the rest of country with a huge patriotic fervour cutting across the Hindu-Muslim religious divide. From their posts the sailors went around Bombay in Lorries and they were supported by the ratings from the naval establishments in Karachi, Cochin and Vizag. Trotskyists and militant radical activists organised with students to distribute literatures supporting the mutiny to major factories in Bombay.

The local police forces along with many other striking workers from the sloops, minesweepers demonstrated in solidarity with the striking naval ratings. About 1000 Royal Indian Air Force (RIAF) men supported the striking naval ratings in solidarity. When orders were given to contain and confront the mutineers the Gurkhas whom the British always counted to be on their side plainly refused to fire on the striking sailors!

Indeed the special bodies of armed men are at the same time a layer of the oppressed masses though their uniforms are provisioned by the state. The loyalty of the men clearly shifted from their imperialist uniform provider to the socio-economic roots they could identify them with!

The newspaper copies of the day carried the siren headlines for the Clement Attlee’s Labour Cabinet. The spectres of October Revolution and the 1919 revolution of Germany were flashed as headline news by the journalists to compare the political significance of this turnaround of events.

Attlee’s ministry though introduced many welfare measures uplifting the lives of millions of ordinary people was nonetheless overseeing the empire for British capitalism largely betraying the interests of the British Labour movement which was on the forefront of the struggle against colonialism.

Despite all its experience in tackling impressment and previous mutinies the machinery of imperialism sought the help of the local political elites of the Congress and the Muslim-League to tackle the revolts which were clearly getting out of hand. British Prime minister Attlee ordered to put down the revolt and the rebels were given the ultimatum to surrender. The Flag officer J.H. Godfrey (who apparently is the inspiration of the fictional character ‘M’ in Ian Fleming’s James Bond book) commanding the RIN, went on air threatening those brave rebels with his order to “Submit or perish”! Armed attacks against the naval ratings and sailors were triggered to force surrender.

All through the upsurge the mutineers who were apparently from different backgrounds and level of consciousness, showed their support to their respective political parties by enthusiastically hoisting on the shore establishments the flags of Congress, Muslim League and the Communist Parties instead the imperial White Ensign. Unfortunately they were about to face the political opportunism of their leaders based as ever on the betrayal of countless sacrifices and lives!

The ‘popular heads’ of the Congress and the Muslim League parties were clearly aware of their role as inheritors of the state apparatus from the British and they did everything possible to insulate the masses from the naval revolt. Though the Communist Party of India (CPI) supported the naval revolt and even called for a general strike, largely its leadership castrated by Stalinismⁱⁱⁱ was just a spectator in this most important phase of the national liberation struggle appallingly had squandered its dedicated cadres and the influence on the trade unions.

The let-down by the main political parties and it’s so called ‘national leaders’, the perils of further open confrontations from the British navy Commanders, and the absence of a revolutionary leadership to take the struggle forward, have all lead to the isolation of the revolt. The naval strike committee accepted the proposal for surrender after the initial rejections from the committee members on February 24^th 1946. The black flags were hoisted to announce the surrender.

The news of the naval revolt spread like wild fire around the country including the tightly controlled ranks of the army units. Within a couple of days the army men of the Signals Training Centre (STC) at Jabalpur in central India, mutinied soon after the Navy revolt. Apparently 1700 soldiers were involved in this uprising which lasted two weeks and subsequently suppressed by brutal force by the British.

Nevertheless the British Empire finally came to the conclusion that they cannot pursue their imperial ambitions in the sub-continent anymore. Clement Attlee was forced to immediately announce the Cabinet Mission to India and hastened the process of independence.

The great naval revolt of 1946 forced the national liberation from the hands of the uncanny British ruling class and promoted solidarity amongst the masses overriding communal, and caste divisions, but those ruling classes sponsored partition based independence of India and Pakistan saw over a million people die in the largest and deadliest population exchange in history and the abortion of democratic revolution.

The legends of our class

Hundreds of rebel soldiers got dismissed, their units disbanded and several detained and their extraordinary tale of struggle was denied the worthy acknowledgement! Respective Indian and Pakistani ruling class refused the entry of those mutineers back into defence services. Worse, decades after the independence, still millions of ordinary people in India are still under the yoke of oppression and less than subsistence wage slavery, but it’s the business corporations and their cronies that are the new masters!

Whether it’s the’ British Raj’ or the present ‘Corporate Raj’ the lives of ordinary people is a living hell! The ever increasing social inequality, deprivation, extreme violence against women, farmers’ suicide and many other miseries compel the case for a radical change in a backward country like India. Nevertheless with a 500 million strong working class base the Indian capitalist establishment can be forced to the pages of history. In 2013 over 100 million workers all over India took a 48 hours general strike action protesting against the neo-liberal market reforms. The importance of building a genuine Marxist revolutionary organisation is an important task for the most resolute and the combative layers of the Indian working class.

The legacy of the ‘Bombay mutiny’ will definitely be a guiding light for the colossal struggles to come. Heroic class battles and those fighters of our class their lives and sacrifices will not be in vain and it will be enshrined forever in the glorious history and the traditions of the working class.