Category: Political Science Notes

This article throws light upon the top six major functions of legislature as board of directors. The functions are: 1. Determination of the Activities to be Undertaken 2. Determination of Organisation 3. Determination of Personnel 4. Determination of Rules of Procedure 5. Determination of Grant of Funds 6. Legislative Supervision.

Function # 1. Determination of the Activities to be Undertaken:

As regards the first function there can be little doubt that the determination of what the government shall do is a responsibility that rests upon the legislature. The policy to be adopted by the government both in the internal and external field is set out by the legislature.

But it does not mean that it should lay down all the details of a policy, the specific acts which shall be performed in carrying out the policy. Better it would be if it prescribes the policy in general terms and leaves the details to the executive.

To illustrate, it may lay down that compulsory primary education should be enforced in the country, but it should not go to the length of prescribing the places where schools will be established. It should leave that judgment to the executive. The legislature is a body of politicians representing particular territories or interests. They are interested primarily in their particular territories.

The executive represents and is interested in the entire territory and government of the State. Its judgement is bound to be better in regard to details than that of the legislature because the former being in close touch with administration is in a better position to understand its needs.

Moreover, the legislature will not be unnecessarily burdened with the task of specifying the details. If the legislature goes into details, it denies the initiative to the executive and thereby may impair the efficiency of administration.

Too great legislative itemization renders it impos­sible for the chief executive to make the most effective utilization of the organization and per­sonnel and to meet exigencies that are only fully developed during the progress of the work.

The legislature should feel contented with the determination of the general programme and should be interested in its efficient execution. Beyond this, it should proceed conservatively, and its further specification should be directory rather than mandatory upon the chief executive.

Function # 2. Determination of Organisation:

“Organization is the medium through which indi­viduals work as a group as effectively as each would work alone. It consists of the relationships of individuals to individuals and of groups to groups, which are so related as to bring about an orderly division of labour.”

Generally speaking organization is divided into departments, bu­reaus, divisions and sections. In addition to these units there are certain units called field stations.

These field stations are created in the services where the work of the service is done not only at the headquarters of the government but also in field stations all over the country, e.g., post offices, railway stations, law courts, etc.

Now the question here at issue is the point at which it is advisable that the legislature should stop in determining not only the departments that shall be created for the performance of administrative duties, but also the internal organiza­tion of these departments.

Concretely, in the words of Willoughby the problem is, “Shall the legislature leave the whole matter of organization to the chief executive as general manager? Shall it determine organization, in so far as the primary units of organization, the departments, independent boards or commissions, etc., are concerned, leaving it to such bodies acting under the general control of the chief executive to provide for the character of internal organization of those services?

Or shall it push its determination still further so as definitely to prescribe by law, not only the departmental and bureau organization, but also the sub-division of these divi­sions, and the final working units, the sections and field stations?”

In practice, there is no uniformity among the various States on this point. In U.S.A. the number and character of the administrative departments that shall be set up for the handling of administrative affairs have been more or less definitely determined by constitution. In France departments are created by the Executive decree.

In India, the power of establishing new de­partments rests with the President acting through the Prime Minister. In so far as the units of the lower order, i.e., divisions, sections and field stations are concerned, the discretion in India is left in the hands of the ministers acting through their heads of departments.

But in all these countries the legislature has from time to time created new agencies in the form of departments, corporations, boards or commissions to carry on a particular activity. Thus in India, the Life Insurance Corporation, Railway Board, the State Electricity Board, Public Service Commission have been created by the legislature.

That in doing so it has been guided largely by the advice of its general manager, the chief executive, is quite true, but the act of determination has been the act of the legislature and these agencies have a legislative status in the sense that their existence has been determined by statutory law.

As to what should be the true principle it may be said that it is desirable that the legisla­ture should content itself with making only the most general provision regarding the organiza­tion of an agency and leave the details of internal organization to be determined by the chief executive because he is the person who is responsible for running the administration.

The legis­lature cannot handle this matter in as intelligent a manner as those directly responsible for the conduct of the affairs. Secondly if legislature determines the organization it gives rigidity to it. The frequency with which the organisation of departments is revised shows the need for flexibil­ity.

Thirdly, it imposes upon an already overburdened legislature the responsibilities of which it should be relieved. Therefore, the chief executive should be given the necessary powers to shape the administrative units according to the requirements of administration.

Function # 3. Determination of Personnel:

Personnel is the body of persons who actually run the administration. It may be of two types—directing personnel, that is, those who are responsible for direction of services and are commonly called officers, and employees proper, that is, those occupying subordinate positions and having as their general duties the carrying out of orders given to them.

It is generally accepted with regard to the former class that the legislature should itself determine their “number, character, compensation, powers and duties.”

In respect of this class the only question is how deep into the organization of the several services this determina­tion shall go. Shall it stop at the heads of departments and members of boards and commissions or go up to the heads of the working units, the sections, field stations and the like? In the U.S.A. the Senate ratifies most of the top appointments made by the President.

This is on account of the presidential form of government and checks and balances system prevalent in that country. Now all the arguments that have been given against the legislature seeking to control organization under the preceding subheading also equally apply to the creation by law of officers to have charge of subordinate units of organisation.

As regards the second class of
employees, the legislature may determine their conditions of service either by a general statute or by an act of appropriation. Willoughby is of the opin­ion that it is not wise to control personnel other than directing personnel, by the first method. Any attempt to prescribe limitations upon subordinate personnel in this manner gives rise to a rigidity that is sure in many cases to work injury.

The Act which provides for the setting up of a service, after providing for the directing personnel may provide “for such other officers and employees as may be from time to time provided by law.” This will leave sufficient discretion to the legislature to determine each year the provision that shall be made for the subordinate personnel of a service at the time of granting appropriations for that service.

Function # 4. Determination of Rules of Procedure:

Rules of procedure may be of two types:

(1) Those which affect the interests or rights outside of service, and

(2) Those which have to do with purely administrative operations within the service.

The example of the former are the rules setting forth the procedure to be followed in assessing and collecting income-tax or land rev­enue, in the grant of copyrights, trademarks, etc.

These are matters affecting personal and prop­erty rights of the people in a most direct manner. The example of the latter are the rules for the disbursement of pay to the members of the service. Now as regards the former it is desirable that the legislature should pass a statute to give them legal sanction.

The question as to whether these rules should be embodied in the Acts of the legislature or promulgated by cabinet or the head of the department involves a consideration of the question of the delegation of legislative powers which lies outside the scope of our study.

The advantage of having these rules embodied in the statutes lies in the greater certainty of their legal force. The advantage of having them embodied in the executive orders lies in the fact that they are drafted by the persons directly familiar with the conditions and problems of the department.

As regards the second category of rules of procedure, it is better to leave wide discretion to the services concerned. The legislature should exercise control over them through a proper system of accounts, reports, audit and the like.

Function # 5. Determination of Grant of Funds:

In all the countries the legislature determines the amount of money which is to be made available for expenditure to the executive. All the public services are to be paid from public funds for their work. If no money is made available, the entire administration would come to a standstill. Therefore, it is the duty of the legislature to find out the needs of every department and make provision of money accordingly.

Function # 6. Legislative Supervision:

Since the legislature is the source of all administrative au­thority and makes money available for carrying out the administration it is desirable that all grants of authority should be accompanied by means for ensuring that such grants are properly exercised.

In other words, it may be said that the legislature should provide the means by which it shall be able to exercise due supervision and control over its agents. To see that these agents perform their duties properly is an imperative duty of the legislature.

Willoughby mentions the following means through which supervision and control may be exercised and accountability enforced:

(i) The requirement that all administrative officers shall keep proper records of their offi­cial acts;

(ii) The requirement that these officers shall submit reports at least once a year giving a full account of their act;

(iii) The requirement that accurate accounts shall be kept of all financial transactions and reports of such transactions shall be made in such form that full information regarding their character is furnished;

(iv) Provision for a system of examination and audit of these accounts;

(v) Provision for the consideration by the legislative bodies, acting directly or indirectly, of the administrative and financial reports with a view to determining not merely the legality of the action taken, but also the efficiency and economy with which official duties have been performed;

(vi) The requirement that administrative officers shall furnish information regarding acts done by them when called upon to do so by the legislature;

(vii) Provision for special investigations or inquiries of a comprehensive character of the manner in which affairs have been conducted by a particular service or services.

Thus from the above description it is clear that the legislature instead of directly running the administration or determining in too detailed a manner the activities, agencies, organization, plant and personnel should give its directions in general terms and provide that the officers charged with their execution shall furnish it with detailed data regarding their action.

It is of greatest importance that the system of accounting, reporting and audit that will correctly and fully furnish the legislature with precise information regarding the acts of all administrative officers should be made perfect.

In the words of John Stuart Mill, “Instead of the Junction of governing which it is radically unfit for, the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts ; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which anyone considers questionable ; to censure them if found condemnable, and, if the men who compose the government abuse their trust, or fulfill it in a manner which conflicts with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office, and either expressly or virtually appoint their successors.”

Upload and Share Your Article:

Here is an essay on the ‘Independent Regulatory Commissions of U.S.A.’ for class 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on the ‘Independent Regulatory Commissions of U.S.A.’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Independent Regulatory Commissions

---

Essay Contents:

1. Essay on the Introduction to Independent Regulatory Commissions
2. Essay on the Features of Independent Regulatory Commissions
3. Essay on the Functions of Independent Regulatory Commissions
4. Essay on the Attempts at Reforms of the Regulatory Commissions
5. Essay on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Regulatory Commissions

---

Essay # 1. Introduction to Independent Regulatory Commissions:

The Independent Regulatory Commissions are peculiar to the constitutional set-up of the United States of America. They are a progeny of the separation of powers and the deep distrust of the Congress in the powers of the American Presidency.

The need for such commissions was felt on account of the growing industrialisation and urbanisation of that country during the nineteenth century when the government felt it imperative to regulate private economic activities. The first independent regulatory commission, set up by the Federal Government, was the Inter State Commerce Commission in 1887.

At present, there are eleven such commissions in the Federal Government of U.S.A., which are as follows:

(i) The Inter-State Commerce Commission, 1887.

(ii) The Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1913.

(iii) The Federal Trade Commission, 1914.

(iv) The Federal Communications Commission, 1934.

(v) The Federal Power Commission, 1930.

(vi) The Securities and Exchange Commission, 1934.

(vii) The National Labour Relations Board, 1935.

(viii) The United States Maritime Commission, 1936. 

(ix) The Civil Aeronautics Board, 1938 and 1940.

(x) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(xi) The Consumer Product Safety Commission.

---

Essay # 2. Features of Independent Regulatory Commissions:

These commissions are marked by the following features:

1. The functions of these commissions are of a mixed nature—administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial. They frame rules and regulations, execute these rules and hear ap­peals against their own decisions.

It is on account of the mixed nature of their functions that they have been called ‘the fourth branch of the government’ for they do not fit into any of the three traditional branches of the government, legislative, executive and judicial.

2. These commissions are staffed by experts and are relatively small.

3. They are collegial in character and consist of a group of men discussing and deciding by majority vote.

4. They are relatively independent of the Chief Executive, i.e., the President. They are neither responsible to him nor report to him. They are set up under a statute passed by the Congress laying down their constitutions and functions.

Though the members are appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate, they are not answerable to him. The overlapping or staggered terms of the members strengthen the independence of the members from the Presi­dent all the more.

Though appointed by the President, the latter cannot remove the members except on grounds specified in the statute creating the commission. The position was established in Humphrey’s executor’s case. It is because of these reasons that these commissions have been described as ‘headless’ for they owe no subordination to the President or any other executive authority.

In fact, they are outside the framework of the departmental organisation under the President and have been rightly called ‘Islands of Autonomy’ within the American administra­tive set-up. The federal administration of the U.S.A. stands ‘disintegrated’ because of the pres­ence of these commissions.

Independence of these Commissions not Absolute:

It may, however, be mentioned that the independence of these regulatory commissions is relative and not absolute. The question arises why it is so? Firstly, they are controlled by the Civil Service Commission in personnel administration.

Secondly, their budgets are subject to the review of the Bureau of Budget which is a staff agency of the American President. Thirdly, their actions are subject to judicial review and can be declared void.

The judiciary examines their actions from three principal aspects. “In assuring the use of correct procedures in admin­istrative action, in preventing action in excess of powers conferred by the legislature, and, where administrative action depends on a factual record, in making sure that the evidence in the record is sufficient.”

Finally, they are subject to the control of the Congress, which has the power to order an investigation into their working and operations. The Congress can also amend their constitutions, and, even abolish them, although the last step has never been taken.

As a matter of fact, the control of the Congress is only of a general character and these commissions are regarded as ‘the arms of the Congress’. On the whole, we can say that these commissions are largely autonomous.

It will not be out of place to point out that the regulatory work by the administration is to be found in almost all the countries of the world and it is usually done by the various govern­ment departments, corporations, local bodies, etc.

Even in the U.S.A. most of the regulatory work is done by the departments, local bodies, etc. In India, we are well familiar with the rules and regulations regarding construction of buildings, zoning, etc., framed by the municipal bod­ies. What distinguishes these bodies from the independent regulatory commissions is the posi­tion and status of the latter in being outside the control of the Chief Executive.

---

Essay # 3. Functions of Independent Regulatory Commissions:

In order to understand their importance in the American administrative setup, it is essential to have a working knowledge of their functions.

A brief description of the functions of some of the commissions is given below:

1. The Inter-State Commerce Commission:

The main functions of this commission are to develop, co-ordinate and preserve a transport system by rail, water, road and by other means. It has to promote safe, adequate and efficient transport service and to fix up reasonable charges for the same. It has also to prevent discrimination or unfair competitions among the various agencies of transport.

2. The Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

The Board deter­mines and controls monetary conditions, credit, and operating policies. All the national banks and Federal Reserve banks of the U.S.A. are the members of this body and are supervised by the Board.

3. The Federal Trade Commission:

It has the duty to prevent unfair methods of compe­tition in trade, control false advertisement of food, drugs, etc. The Commission safeguards the entire economic system so as to maintain conditions of free competitive enterprise.

4. The Federal Communication Commission:

It regulates inter-state and foreign wire­less, radio and television communication.

5. The Federal Powe
r Commission:

It was originally set up in 1920 as an agency for licensing hydro-electric projects but was later on reorganized as an independent regulatory com­mission in 1930. At present, its functions extend to the licensing of hydro-electric projects, transmission and sale of electric energy and natural gas.

6. The Securities and Exchange Commission:

The main function of the commission is to protect the interest of the investors against mal-practices in the securities and financial markets.

7. The National Labour Relations Board:

The Board was set up by the National Labour Relations Act, 1935. It investigates unfair labour practices by the labour unions and victimization of the employees by the employers.

8. The United States Maritime Commission:

It encourages the development and main­tenance of a merchant marine for commerce and national defence.

9. The Civil Aeronautics Board:

The main functions of the commission are to develop air transport, prescribe safety standards, investigate air crashes, assist development of interna­tional transport, etc. It may be mentioned here that these federal level commissions have jurisdiction which extends throughout the territory of the U.S.A.

According to Pfiffner, the functions of the commissions are three:

(i) To inform the industry and other regulated groups as to the objectives of public policy in so far as regulation is concerned;

(ii) To discover and promulgate the rules and regulations which will ensure that this policy is achieved;

(iii) To enforce such regulations either by adjudicating controversies arising between the public and the interest regulated or by prosecuting acts which violate established policy.

According to Willoughby, “These bodies have two prime functions, to formulate rules and regulations having the force of law in determining the rates and conditions of service of public utility corporations, and to pass upon issues affecting public and private rights arising under such rules and regulations, or the statutes authorizing the formulation and promulgation of such rules and regulations.”

The main functions of these commissions can be summarized:

Firstly, they set up standards, rules and regulations to govern the behaviour of a particular industry,

Secondly, they enforce these standards, rules and regulations, and

Thirdly, they prosecute the defaulters.

They, therefore, enjoy both the powers to make administrative legislation and to adjudicate administrative disputes.

They regulate the economic activities by three different procedures:

(a) By rule making which means by elaborating and defining the general norms as laid down in the parent Acts,

(b) By administrative methods such as licensing, inspection, publicity, etc., and

(c) By case-by-case decision method which is used on complaints against the violation of the law or the norms laid down.

The Commissions can hear cases and award decisions either on a regular petition having been made by a private party or on their own initiative. This last power to take initiative is the main distinguishing feature which differentiates the commission from the ordinary courts. As we know, ordinary courts cannot start judicial proceedings on their own initiative.

As soon as a commission takes the initiative on its own or on petition from a private party, it issues notices to the party or parties concerned. The next step is the hearing of the case. The commission is not bound by the formal rules of evidence and whatever relevant evidence can assist it in fact-finding is accepted. Nor it is essential that the petition must be heard by the person who is to ultimately decide the case.

The usual procedure is that the case is heard by over a dozen of examiners and on the basis of relevant evidence, a decision is recommended to the head of the Commission.

Generally, the head of the Commission simply endorses the decision of the exam­iners. Judicial review of and appeals from these decisions again rest with the Commission which sits as an administrative tribunal in respect of these decisions. Because of the mixed nature of their functions these commission have become target of criticism.

---

Essay # 4. Attempts at Reforms of the Regulatory Commissions:

The President’s Committee on Administrative Management, popularly known as Brownlow Committee, recommended in its report (1936) that the functions of the regulatory commission should be divided into two groups—non-judicial and judicial.

As far the non-judicial functions are concerned, they should be integrated with other administrative departments of the federal government and as far the judicial functions are concerned, the commissions should continue to act as autonomous adjudicatory boards, within the departments to which they are attached, for handling cases involving administrative adjudication.

Under the arrangement, a special bureau or division was to be set up in each department to do the administrative work of the commission under the control of the secretary and the President.

Such a bureau was to be assigned the commission’s function of rule-making, planning, investigation, prosecution and policy-making, etc. The Congress, however, rejected the recommendations of the Brownlow Committee and refused to allow the President to control the commissions to any degree whatever.

The recom­mendations of the Committee were criticized by the Attorney-General’s Committee on Adminis­trative Procedure which reported in 1941.

The Committee said, “A separation of functions would seriously militate against what this committee has already noted as being numerically and otherwise the life blood of the administrative process negotiations and informal settlements. Clearly, amicable disposition of cases is far less likely where negotiations are with official devoted solely to prosecution and where the prosecuting officials cannot turn to the deciding branch to discover the law and the applicable procedures.”

The Hoover Commission (1949), however, drew quite the opposite conclusion from that of the Brownlow Committee. It called the regulatory commissions ‘an outstanding develop­ment’ in the American federal government.

Of course, it mentioned the haphazard and uncoor­dinated nature of their growth and emphasized better coordination in response to the needs of the federal government.

It said “It is found that a large part ‘of the work of the Commission is not closely related to that of the rest of the Government and requires active coordination to avoid conflicts.” It also recommended enhancement of the powers of the chairman and increase in the salaries of the commissioners.

From the above, it is clear that there is no unanimity of opinions as to the utility of these commissions. However, they appear impregnable. It appears that the Americans have accepted their existence as a matter of fact.

Under the circumstances, what is needed is that Congres­sional as well as judicial control over them should be strengthened. James W. Fester has made the following recommendations for the proper functioning of these commissions

“First, the quality of men and women appointed to the commissions is more important than the details of organisations. Second, judicial work should be carried on in an impartial manner, free from the bias characteristic of the prosecution function. Third, coordination of policy formulation and administrative management among government agencies is essential, es­pecially during periods when government plays a positive role in the economy. The chief execu­tive appears to be the only responsible and effective focus for such coordination. And fourth, independent commissions should be subject to th
e same control by the legislative and judicial branches that applies to all other regulatory and service agencies of government.”

---

Essay # 5. Advantages and Disadvantages of Regulatory Commissions:

Advantages of Regulatory Commissions:

Regulation of private business activities is not an easy job particularly in America where big business magnates have high purchasing power. Under the circumstances, it is extremely difficult for any organisation to manifest complete impartiality to all the parties concerned. There are serious dangers of corruption, nepotism and unfairness.

“The industries affected by regula­tion are often powerful and politically influential, and regulation controls their profits, their services and their finances. The combination of a wide administrative discretion, on the one hand, and great private influence, on the other, plus high stakes in the relationships between them, involves serious risks of corruption and unfairness. In this situation, the independent regu­latory commission seems most nearly to meet the need.”

The merits of this type of organization were clearly brought out by the Hoover Commission Task Force on regulatory commissions said “The number of members and their security of tenure are intended to assure freedom from partisan control or favouritism. The group is able to resist outside influence more effectively than an individual and each member is free from a threat of removal as a source of pressure. Moreover, since the activities of the commission may be more subject to public scrutiny than would be a single bureau in a large department, there is greater opportunity for exposure of pressures or improper actions. Finally, while provisions for hearings and similar safeguards against arbitrary actions are not peculiar to commissions, they may be more effective when combined with group action.”

To sum up, the advantages of independent regulatory commissions are:

(i) It creates a device which makes it possible to exclude the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial activities from the hands of bureaucracy.

(ii) It puts the activities of national importance and of a technical nature outside the bane of party politics.

(iii) It is a good device of harmonizing the generalist and specialist administrators’ rela­tionships which are hard to achieve in a Departmental system of organization.

(iv) It brings different shades of opinions and interests together to shoulder a national problem.

(v) It insulates the process of business from partisan political forces by making it plural- headed.

Disadvantages of Regulatory Commissions:

With all the above advantages of the commissions, they have been subjected to severe and varied criticism.

The main indictments are:

(i) It is said that the regulatory commissions owe no responsibility to any constituted authority. They function outside the administrative set-up of the President and have been rightly called as ‘headless’. The President has no power to dismiss any of the members with the result that they can easily stand in the way of effective and integrated administration of the Chief Executive.

Sometimes it is said that, if not responsible to the President, they are the agents of the Congress and are responsible to it, but in practice, the control of the Congress is only nominal. At the most, the Congress can make investigations and obtain reports; it cannot control the details of their policies and actions.

No wonder, they have been called as ‘irresponsible commission’, ‘the fourth branch of the government’, ‘areas of unaccountability’, and so forth.

The Brownlow committee (1937) commented. “They (independent regulatory commissions) are in reality independent governments set up to deal with the rail road problem, the banking prob­lem, or the radio problem. They constitute a ‘headless’ fourth branch of the Government, a haphazard deposit of irresponsible agencies and un-coordinated powers. They do violation to the basic theory of the American Constitution that there should be three branches of the gov­ernment and only three. The Congress has found no effective way of supervising them, they cannot be controlled by the President, and they are answerable to the courts only in respect of the legality of the activities.”

This Committee further added that “though the commissions en­joy power without responsibility they also leave the President with responsibility without power.”

(ii) The Commissions combine in themselves the functions of the legislator, prosecutor, and the judge, thereby jeopardizing the rights and liberties of the people. The commissions formulate very important policies in the business and industrial fields and with these combined functions, can easily act arbitrarily.

Besides, the commissions do not have that impartiality and neutrality which is essential for the performance of judicial work. The big business magnates with whom the commissions have to deal with are very powerful and usually exert pressures to get their work done to their advantage.

Again, the commissions have their own procedures of hearing appeals and making decisions. They are not bound by the rules of evidence and other procedures normally adopted by the ordinary courts of law. As such, there is no safeguard against the miscarriage of justice.

Although, appeals against their decisions can be made to the regular courts but it is a recourse rarely permitted because of the strict limitations. In the words of Robert E. Cushman, “The Commissions are being asked to perform judicial task interwoven with determination-of policy which at times are the subjects of acute partisan controversy or economic class antagonisms. This is not the atmosphere in which the rights of individuals ought to be judged. It is a vital and inherent weakness of the independent commission system.”

Senator Paul Douglas points out, “There is a tendency of independent regulatory agencies to surrender their regulatory zeal, and to become more and more the pro­tagonists of a clientele industry, and less and less the vigilant defenders of the welfare of the consumers or the general public. All too often, those who are supposedly being regulated, actually regulate their nominal regulators.”

(iii) As these commissions are outside the control of the President, they have served as a great ‘disintegrating’ force in the federal administration of the U.S.A. They can obstruct effec­tive co-ordination of the national policy by non-cooperating with the other departments of the federal government.

Besides, there usually arise conflicts of jurisdiction between these commis­sions and other executive departments because some of the regulatory functions are common to both these bodies. All this can result in ‘a decentralized and chaotic administration’.

(iv) It is also said that the commissions are unwilling to make use of the auxiliary ser­vices such as statistical, economic, legal services, etc., of the other departments. This results in high expenditure and duality of personnel, etc. Perhaps, this is on account of the superiority complex which the commissions want to show off to the other departments.

(v) It is also argued that these commissions have not served the purpose for which they were established. Neither they have been able to protect the public interest nor they have as­sured the long-term progress of the industry.

The Hoover Commission (1949) commented “The chief criticism that can be made of the regulatory commissions is that they become too engrossed in case-by-case activities and thus fail to plan their roles and to promote the enter­prises entrusted to their care. Typical of this is the attitude by which the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Inter-State Commerce Commiss
ions have approached the problem of building a route structure for the nation.”

(vi) It is also said that these regulatory commissions suffer from undue laxity and slack­ness in the performance of their functions. This is on account of the fact that they are neither responsible to the President nor accountable to the Congress in any effective manner. The fact that their decisions can be reversed by the courts makes them, in the words of Aurthur M. Macmahon, ‘timid’.

The regulatory commissions, it is argued, are inherently weak because of the commis­sion or plural type of their organisation. As far as this criticism is concerned, it can be said that this weakness is common to a commission type of organisation and is not specific characteristic of the regulatory commission. It can be remedied by making the role of the chairman more effective.

Indeed, the Hoover Commission recommended the strengthening of the chairman’s role and some substantial steps have already been taken in this direction.

Thus, the regulatory commissions are under fire from two camps the administrative and the judicial. The administrator condemns them because their existence creates difficulties in integration and coordination. The lawyer is opposed to them because their procedure and meth­ods in adjudication do not satisfy the canons of judicial propriety.

---

Upload and Share Your Article:

Read this article in Hindi to learn about:- 1. Introduction to Responsive Administration 2. Meaning and Definitions of Responsive Administration 3. Indicators.

उत्तरदायी प्रशासन से आसय (Introduction to Responsive Administration):  

एक सुशासन अथवा उत्तरदायी शासन की स्थापना के लिए मनुष्य सदैव से प्रयासरत रहा है । सभ्यता के प्रारम्भिक चरण पर दृष्टिपात करने से भी यह सिद्ध हो जाता है ।

प्रारम्भ में ‘राज्य’ व ‘सुशासन’ को एक-दूसरे का पर्यायवाची मानने के कारण शब्दावली का भेद अवश्य रहा किन्तु अन्तर्निहित इच्छा सदैव से यही रही है कि प्रशासनिक बागडोर ऐसे व्यक्तियों के हाथों में हो जो कि अपने क्षेत्र में योग्य, प्रशिक्षित, विशेषज्ञ एवं विवेकयुक्त होने के साथ-साथ स्वार्थरहित एवं जनता के प्रति पूर्णरूपेश उत्तरदायी हों ।

प्लेटो, हॉब्स, लॉक रूसो एवं महात्मा गाँधी आदि सभी विचारक इसी मान्यता के समर्थक रहे हैं । कौटिल्य ने ‘अर्थशास्त्र’ में राजा के कर्त्तव्यों से सम्बन्धित जो मानदण्ड निर्धारित किये हैं उनसे भी ‘सुशासन’ अथवा ‘उत्तरदायी’ शासन का बोध होता है ।

मध्ययुगीन इतिहास भी इस बात का साक्षी है कि जब कभी राजा ने निरंकुशता का मार्ग अपनाया या जनता के अधिकारों की अवहेलना की, उसे इसकी कीमत चुकानी पड़ी । ऐसे अवसरों का भी अभाव नहीं रहा, जबकि संगठित न होने के कारण जनता ने चुपचाप अत्याचार सहे किन्तु इस स्थिति में कहीं-न-कहीं विद्रोह की भावना को जन्म दिया और जिसका प्रस्फुटन ‘सुशासन’ अथवा ‘उत्तरदायी शासन’ की माँ के रूप में हुआ । भारतीय राष्ट्रीय आन्दोलन के परिप्रेक्ष्य में यह स्पष्टतया परिलक्षित होता है । स्वतन्त्रोतर भारत में भी जन सहभागिता में वृद्धि हुई है तथा ‘उत्तरदायी प्रशासन’ की माँग यथावत कायम है ।

सुशासन को किसी निश्चित सीमा रेखा में नहीं बाँधा जा सकता है । यह एक गतिशील अवधारणा है । सुशासन के अन्तर्गत बहुत से पहलू समाहित होते हैं यथा राजनीतिक सामाजिक एवं आर्थिक क्षेत्रों में तीव्र एवं अनुकूल प्रगति तथा इसके साथ ही अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय परिवेश को भी मद्देनजर रखते हुए जनहितार्थ अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय सम्बन्धों की स्थापना आदि । परिवर्तित परिस्थितियों में ‘सुशासन’ अथवा ‘उत्तरदायी शासन’ की परिभाषा में भी परिवर्तन आना स्वाभाविक है ।

सुशासन अथवा उत्तरदायी शासन: अर्थ एवं परिभाषाएँ (Good Governance or Responsive Administration: Meaning and Definitions):

जनकल्याणकारी एवं जनता के प्रति उत्तरदायी शासन को ही ‘सुशासन’ की संज्ञा दी जा सकती है अन्य शब्दों में सुशासन का निकट सम्बन्ध ‘सामान्य हित’ से है । निस्संदेह ‘सामान्य’ शब्द से तात्पर्य व्यक्तिगत हितों से नहीं वरन् ‘अधिकतम लोगों के अधिकतम हित’ से है ।

भारतीय अवधारणा में अधिकतम का अर्थ अत्यन्त व्यापक है जिसमें विश्वव्यापी हित को सम्मिलित माना जाता है जबकि पाश्चात्य विचारधारा में ‘विश्वव्यापी हित’ को अपवादस्वरूप ही स्वीकार किया जाता है । लोक हित की अपेक्षा सामान्य हित का क्षेत्र अधिक व्यापक होता है क्योंकि लोक हित से तात्पर्य समस्त लोगों का हित नहीं वरन् अधिकांश लोगों का हित है ।

सुशासन का आशय जे. एस. मिल के इन शब्दों से व्यक्त होता है- ”किसी सरकार की अच्छाई को देखने की एक विधि है कि शासन संचालन में कितनी अच्छाई को काम में लेनी है ?”

मिनोचा के मतानुसार- “सद्‌शासन वह है जहाँ राजनीतिक उत्तरदायित्व, स्वतन्त्रता की उपलब्धि, कानूनपालक, नौकरशाही उत्तरदायित्व, सूचना में पारदर्शिता, जो प्रभावी एवं कुशल और सरकार तथा समाज में सहयोह हो ।”

पनन्दीकरण के शब्दों में- “सद्‌शासन का आशय उस राष्ट्र राज्य से है जो जनता को शान्तिपूर्ण, व्यवस्थित, समृद्ध, उचित, सहभागितापूर्ण जीवन व्यतीत करने के लिए निर्देशित करता है ।”

सद्‌शासन की
अवधारणा 1980 और 1990 के दशक में उस समय अवतरित हुई जबकि ‘संरचनात्मक सामंजस्य कार्यक्रम’ (Structural Adjustment Programme) के माध्यम से वृद्ध आर्थिक आर्थिक नीति सुधार कार्यक्रमों का आरम्भ किया गया था । समयानुसार सद्‌शासन की परिभाषा विस्तृत होती चली गयी ।

संक्षेप में कहा जा सकता है कि सुशासन से आशय जनता के प्रति उत्तरदायी उस शासन व्यवस्था से है जिसमें निम्नलिखित पहलुओं को सम्मिलित किया जाता है:

(i) उतरदायत्विपूर्ण एत्त्र कार्यकुशल राजनीतिक सत्ता ।

(ii) सत्ता द्वारा देश के आर्थिक व सामाजिक संसाधनों का समुचित प्रबन्ध ।

(iii) सत्ता की नियोजन व कार्यान्वयन की क्षमता ।

(iv) लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्यों का सम्मान ।

(v) प्रशासन में पारदर्शिता एवं जनता के प्रति उत्तरदायी ।

(vi) प्रशासन में सहभागिता ।

(vii) जनता के प्रति सेवा का भाव ।

(viii) मानव अधिकारों में आस्था एवं उनके क्रियान्वयन के प्रति झुकाव ।

सद्शासन के सूचक (Indicators of Good Governance or Responsive Administration):

एल. एन. शर्मा तथा सुस्मिता शर्मा ने कौटिल्य के ‘अर्थशास्त्र’ को अपने क्षेत्र में सर्वोपरि मानते हुए ग्रन्थ में से सद्‌शासन के दस सूचकों को चुना है जो इस प्रकार हैं:

(1) राजा द्वारा वैयक्तिक हित का त्याग:

राजा को जनता के प्रति कर्त्तव्यों को सर्वोपरि मानते हुए उनके हित में अपने व्यक्तिगत हित का त्याग करने में संकोच नहीं करना चाहिए । कौटिल्य का सजा निरंकुश नहीं हो सकता वह ‘सप्तांग’ की सलाह पर कार्य करता है वह सहयोगियों के साथ मिलकर जनता के हित में सामूहिक निर्णय लेता है । कौटिल्य ने राजनीति व सरकार के साथ-साथ समाज पर भी प्रतिबन्ध लगाने के लिए कठोर दण्डनीति का प्रावधान किया ।

(2) सार्वजनिक प्रतिबद्धता:

सद्‌शासन उचित दिशा अर्थात् लोक कल्याण की ओर निर्देशित होना चाहिए तथा उसमें व्यक्तिगत प्रतिबद्धता के स्थान पर सार्वजनिक या सामूहिक प्रतिबद्धता को सर्वोपरि स्थान दिया जाना चाहिए यह खेद का विषय है कि वर्तमान में इसके विपरीत स्थिति दृष्टिगत होती है ।

(3) लक्ष्य की उपेक्षा न करना:

राज्य व शासन को हर प्रकार के अनुचित दबावों से बचते हुए जनकल्याण की ओर लक्ष्योन्मुख होना चाहिए किसी भी व्यक्तिगत हित स्वार्थपरता एवं अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय दबाव के तहत जनहित या जनसेवा के परम लक्ष्य की अवहेलना नहीं की जानी चाहिए । इसी तथ्य को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए भारत ने उदारीकरण के विरुद्ध आवाज उठाई ।

(4) अनुशासित आचारण:

कौटिल्य ने राजा व मन्त्रीगणों के लिए अनुशासित जीवन तथा आचरणसंहिता की व्यवस्थ की । भारत के प्राय: सभी धर्म-अर्थों का मूल यही है । आज जिस सद्‌शासन की स्थापना के लिए इतने अधिक प्रयास किये जा रहे हैं, यह आश्चर्यजनक तथ्य है कि प्राचीन भारत में यह सद्‌शासन सहज ही विद्यमान था । इसका प्रमुख कारण यह था कि समय शासक व शासित दोनों का ही जीवन अनुशासित तथा चरित्र उन्नत था । इसके विपरीत वर्तमान में दोनों का ही अभाव है ।

(5) निश्चित वेतन:

कौटिल्य ने राजा के लिए निश्चित वेतन का प्रावधान किया । राज परिवार के सदस्यों को निश्चित भत्ता दिया जाता था । भत्ते में वृद्धि करने के लिए मन्त्रिपरिषद की स्वीकृति आवश्यक थी । भारत में स्थिति अत्यन्त चिन्ताजनक है जहाँ कि विधायिका की बिना स्वीकृति के ही प्रधानमन्त्री, मुख्यमन्त्रियों सांसदों एवं विधायकों आदि के वेतन-भत्तों में निरन्तर वृद्धि होती है । जबकि जनता का एक बड़ा हिस्सा भुखमरी का जीवन व्यतीत करता है ।

(6) कानून व्यवस्था की स्थापना:

कौटिल्य के अनुसार- ”राजा को जनता की सेवा के लिए वेतन मिलता है और उसका मुख्य कर्त्तव्य कानून और व्यवस्था बनाये रखना और लोगों के जीवन तथा स्वतन्त्रता की रक्षा करना है ।” कौटिल्य ने
यहाँ तक कहा कि यदि किसी नागरिक की सम्पत्ति चोरी होती है तो राजा को अपनी ओर से भुगतान करना चाहिए ।

(7) लेखपाल व लेखकों का महत्व:

कौटिल्य ने लेखपालों व लेखकों को समाज में अत्यन्त उच्च स्थान प्रदान किया । उनके चयन में भी अत्यधिक सावधानी रखी जाती थी क्योंकि उनमें शाही आदेश, विज्ञप्ति आदि लिखने की क्षमता का होना आवश्यक था । वर्तमान में लेखकों व लेखपालों की विशिष्ट योग्यता तथा उन्हें दिये जाने वाले सम्मान दोनों का ही अभाव दृष्टिगोचर होता है ।

(8) कठोर दण्ड व्यवस्था:

कौटिल्य ने भ्रष्ट अधिकारियों एवं प्रशासकीय कर्मचारियों के विरुद्ध कठोर दण्डात्मक कार्यवाही करने का प्रावधान किया । भ्रष्ट अधिकारियों को अनुशासित रखने के लिए नियन्त्रण व निरीक्षण आवश्यक होता है ।

(9) नियुक्ति सम्बन्धी प्रावधान:

कौटिल्य के अनुसार एक लम्बे समय तक पद पर बने रहने से भी अनुशासनहीनता आने की सम्भावना बनी रहती है । अत: समय-समय पर पुराने मन्त्रियों के स्थान पर अधिक योग्य व सक्षम तथा उत्तरदायित्व की भावना से पूर्ण मन्त्रियों की नियुक्ति की जानी चाहिए ।

(10) योग्यता को प्राथमिकता:

कौटिल्य ने सुशासन हेतु राजा के लिए कतिपय योग्यताओं का निर्धारण किया जो कि इस प्रकार है- बुद्धिसम्पन्न, कर्मठ, नेतृत्व की क्षमता, नैतिक आचरण, योग्य मन्त्रियों के चयन की क्षमता, प्रशासनिक एकरूपता, शीघ्र निर्णय करने की क्षमता आदि ।

कौटिल्य द्वारा स्थापित ये सूचक वर्तमान परिप्रेक्ष्य में भी सार्थक प्रतीत होते हैं ।

Upload and Share Your Article:

Liberty can be defended in the following ways:

(1) Establishment of Democracy:

Liberty and Democracy go together. Liberty is safer and more secure in Democracy than in any other form of government. Democratic government is the government of the people whereas in other forms of government (like Absolute Monarchy and Dictatorship) all powers are centered and centralized into the hands of one person or a group of persons.

The person in power or a group of persons in power cannot tolerate his or their criticism. It is the quality of Democracy that opposite parties are given due respect in Democracy. It is the opposite parties that form the government after the failure of the ruling party. Criticism of the government is welcomed in Democracy.

(2) Constitution:

It is only the constitution that confines the authority of the state. It lays down certain barriers and these barriers are not to be crossed by the state while using its authority.

(3) Fundamental Rights:

Fundamental rights are assured to us by the government. They protect our liberty to a very great extent. It is these fundamental rights that also confine the authority of the state. In the existence of fundamental rights the state cannot interfere in the matters of personal life. In the absence of fundamental rights liberty of the individual is never out of danger and in the absence of liberty development of human personality is not possible.

(4) Independent Judiciary:

For the safeguard of liberty it is necessary that Judiciary should be independent. It should be free from the control of the Executive. If Judiciary is subordinate to the Executive or if it is not free from the influence of the Executive, it will not be able to impart justice nor will it be able to protect the fundamental rights of man.

In the communist countries or in the countries which have Dictatorship, fundamental rights are given to the people, but Judiciary is not free from the influence of the Executive. In such countries, the safeguard and security of fundamental rights, constitution and liberty is not quite possible.

(5) Decentralisation of Powers:

Centralization of powers gives rise to monarchy. Therefore decentralization of power is required for the safeguard of liberty. Powers should be divided into central, provincial and local self-governments. This decentralization of powers leads to efficient administration. And people also start co-operating with the functioning of the government.

(6) Economic Security:

“Where there are rich and poor”, says Laski, “Educated and uneducated, we always find a relation of master and servant”. Economic security is a condition to liberty. For the safeguard of liberty it is essential that people should have economic security.

This is possible only in the absence of economic disparity, inflation and unemployment. People should have superior standard of living and have equal opportunities for making their progress. This is possible only in socialism and not in capitalism.

(7) Rule of Law:

For the safeguard of liberty, the application of the rule of law is necessary. Rule of law is established in England, U.S.A. and India. Rule of law means that there should not be any distinction of caste and creed, colour and race. In the eyes of law all are equal and all are liable to be punished if they commit crime. No privileges will be given to a person belonging to a particular class nor will there be any provision for immunity. No person will be punished or kept in custody for a long time until and unless his crime is proved.

(8) Political Education and Eternal Vigilance:

Permanent safeguard of liberty is possible only when people are politically educated and are acutely aware of their rights and duties. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and in its absence one can act according to his will. Laski has very aptly remarked, ‘It is the proud spirit of the citizens, less than the letter of the law that is the most real safeguard”.

Whenever the government crosses the barrier of its authority and interferes in the personal life of the people, people rise in revolt against the government. Jefferson’s comment is worth-noting in this regard: “What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance”.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Introduction:

The pivotal role of politics today inevitably requires formulation and making of a scientific political theory. Developed countries need it to avoid the holocaust of a nuclear war, solve problems arising from affluence, techno­logical revolution, pollution and other human maladies. Developing countries, belonging to third and fourth worlds, necessitate it to organise their polity, get rid of illiteracy, squalor, disease and backwardness and find out a form of governance appropriate to their needs and requirements.

We, in particular, want to know the way to provide for the minimum needs of our people, adopt both democracy and freedom, and reconcile the competing demands of peace, security and development. As a fast growing economic and nuclear power of the twenty-first century, India’s responsibilities are global. In fact, the world as a whole requires an empirical political theory for its very survival, existence and progress. There is no way out. Let us not kill each other out of ignorance or be killed with our own weapons, violent or non-violent.

A discipline, unless it has its well-developed theory, cannot obtain the status of a mature ‘area of inquiry’. David Easton is still right when he says that Political Science is ‘in search of its identity’. According to him, theory alone accepts an overall responsibility for the coherence and direction of the whole discipline. As a subject, it has a retarded, amateurish, parasitic and abysmal growth. The lack of an advanced and postmodern political theory simply reflects its internal state of affairs.

It is still not Politicology or Polilogy but only Political Science and there is little harmony among its various segments or sub-fields. Some of them enviously compete with each other to become autonomous disciplines even outside the periphery of Political Science.

Few scholars of Political Science are in a position to explain and analyse political happenings scientifically, and/or guide policy-makers and citizens, and reasonably predict the coming events. They have no practical solutions to offer and bear no responsibility for them. Simple collection of facts and data cannot be enough. A scientific political theory is needed to deal with that and properly control and guide it towards a right direction.

Need for Political Theory:

A theory is an intellectual device to understand reality pertaining to a disci­pline. It offers a mental frame or a conceptual framework to pick up facts for study, analysis and evaluation. It is a kind of a ship to steer through the deep and high seas of complex social phenomena. In a theory, innumerable facts, having uniformities – concrete and analytical – are conceptualised. Further, concepts in them are, on the basis of observable reality, woven into generali­sations or general statements.

A theory is essential for a discipline for:

(1) Understanding the subject-matter;

(2) Its existence, survival and recognition as autonomous discipline;

(3) Developing the techniques and methods of study;

(4) Evaluating existent knowledge and for expanding it further;

(5) Finding out new areas of research;

(6) Predictability, control over environment, and policy-making;

(7) Integration of different branches, areas and sub-areas of a discipline; and

(8) Prestige and status of a discipline among other sciences.

It may be honestly pointed out that Political Science as a discipline does not have a broad political theory as such. It has only a growing modern political theory which is yet to mature. Robert A. Dahl also testifies that, ‘In the English-speaking world, political theory is dead. In the communist countries, it is imprisoned. Elsewhere, it is moribund.’ Karl W. Deutsch also accepts that ‘there is no such theory today.’

Upload and Share Your Article:

1. Invincibility of Terrorism:

Few people realise that terrorism is invincible. It cannot be eliminated either by force, propaganda of human rights or spread of liberal education. Terrorism is ‘jihad’ or religious duty committed in the name of Allah, Guru, Prophet, Holy Books or their Preachers. For instance, internally the whole of Islam may not be teaching or preaching terrorism. But there must be some statements in the Holy Books that authorize the terrorists to indulge in terrorism. It might be done just to obey the divine directives or punish the non-believers or propagate it by deeds of violence.

Thousands of terrorists claim to act, either at their own will or on the direction of their mentors, or on these divinely ordained statements. Terrorists are doers and others are passive onlookers. The terrorists do not consider these passive onlookers as believers of Islam.

They see the whole world as anti or non-Muslim. Therefore, in the name of Islam they commit any kind of violence. They are taught or trained to make any sacrifice. No power on earth can, particularly, when they are supported and guided by the leaders of their own government and community, stop them.

Weapons, diplomacy, technology and politics are unable to restrain terrorists. The terrorists and their mentors are trying to possess nuclear bombs. The moment they succeed they would be invin­cible. Islamic rulers, dictators and political leaders make full use of their commitment to Islam. No other religion or ideology has been able to stand up to face this encounter. Terrorists know this position of all other peaceful religions or ideologies well. Terrorism is treated as an unfailing weapon of religion.

Religions that thrive on teachings of peace, toleration, otherworldly bliss and non-violence simply have either to surrender to them or keep dispassionate, introvert and listless silence. Doggedness of terrorism has disabled the nation-state, viability of democratic systems and protection of well-equipped standing armies.

A large number of scholars, intellectuals and leaders, in the past, already knew the power of Islam, but only a few realize that presently it is also a perennial source of terrorism in the modern world. They fail to face the reality for the sake of their own survival, fear of widespread communal disturbances, dependence on goodwill of the Muslims for protecting their vested interests and sustenance of fragile polities. The killing sword of Islamic terrorism continuously hangs over their head.

Muslims and non-Muslims all suffer from this threat. Any attempt to analyse or discuss the mystery, or casting doubt, criticising or suggesting correction, reform or remedy in the tenets of Islam is likely to result in severe punishment, humil­iation, amputation, destruction and death of the person or persons engaged in such acts. Islam authorises every believer to stop and punish non-Islamic acts. A believer, in fact, has no discretion to keep himself away.

Contemporary terrorism has a perennial human source. Out of one billion Muslims, there is likelihood of a few million of Muslims to continue to operate as fundamentalists or terrorists. Under the circumstances, terrorism becomes an all-weather weapon to fight against the enemies, particularly, the US, Israel, and the European Union. The Islamic countries like to push the frontline of terrorists to tread only on the road of terrorism. Islamic teachings provide a perennial and readymade source of manpower to them.

Military rulers and political leaders of the Muslim states cunningly and knowingly make use of them to realise their political goals. This they do by transforming their political and military goals as the part of teachings of Islam. After the conversion of their politics into religion, there appears no power on earth, which can distract them from their assigned mission.

Whether one is Muslim or a non-Muslim, one has to accept the Holy Book as the last and final word of God. None is allowed to discuss, criticise and object to it. One cannot raise any objection to statements made in it. If someone dares to do it he can be killed on spot. Every Muslim as a soldier of Islam considers it his prime duty to kill the person doubting or objecting to those holy statements.

Developed nations and their citizens foolishly complain that the Islamic extremists in the name of jihad are attempting to mould the whole world into their ideology. They forget that they are doing what they are directed to do. There is no way to advise them to live like good and peaceful citizens.

Their main difficulty is that they all, including the liberals, are, at heart, blind followers of Islam. They have absolute faith in the teachings of the Quran and the Shariat. The Muslims, as a community of faith, know well that the secret of their strength lies in keeping belief in Islam, intact. Even if they like to, they cannot change themselves.

They have learnt that theirs is the last, final and universal faith. They have to appear diehard, and there is no way out. Being the last message of Allah, the Holy Quran stands over and above everything. There can be no change in it. It has to be obeyed by the whole of Ummah (the community of the believers) spreading the world over in millions. It is the final Law over and above every other law.

Islam is a product or creation of a non-state and non-nation society. It does not recognise entities like state, nation and rule of citizenship, which would bind a believer, or follower of Islam. Islam is global by nature. No state, nation or world-body can claim to stand over and above it. A Muslim in terms of the Holy Quran can live and follow his tenets only when he lives in a community without having a state or nation.

However, if he is compelled to live in a state, or a nation or a community different from his own, he stands at war with it. He can be at peace only in a society of Islam. Muslims tactically can keep patience and show forbearance, or cool down non-Muslims by making liberal interpretation of terror-oriented tenets of Islam, till the opportune moment arrives to transform that polity or community into the version of their orthodox religion. The orthodox believers are to operate as extremists, insurgents and rebels. There is no way to persuade the diehard terrorists to live like good citizens.

Launching war, gunning down or imprisoning them, making sophisti­cated weapons, outlawing their organisations, stopping aid and shelter to them, and the like does not deter or discourage them.”” It may slow down their speed of action and its effect. In fact, all killings, pains and tortures to them rather make their will and acts much stronger and deadlier. It is almost suicidal to imagine or expect that these terrorists would ever change at their own.

However, invincibility of Terrorism invites reaction, counter-action and challenge from the side of opponents. There are two ways to overcome the threat of contemporary Terrorism: one, the Turkey way, and, two, of emergence of more powerful counter-religion or ideology. Turkey has shown the way that Islamic Terrorism can be met even by the Muslims themselves, provided they are able to throw off their orthodox and conservative Islamic mettle under some powerful leadership. This has to be supported by a strong, modern and secular military.

The second way is either the emergence of one another more powerful, organised and strong religion/ideology or reformulate some already existing virile religion/ideology. It has to inherit another Revelation directly from God covering tenets on all matters of life, commandeering to destroy and eliminate every other form of religion, past and present, of similar jehadi nature. Being based on the universal principles of Justice, Reason and Equality, the new religion can claim itself to be the Last and Final Message of Man.

Such religion would deny all civil, political, financial and existential rights
at global level to the differing perpetrators of violence and terrorism in the name of God or holy books. From this point of view, it looks futile to bank upon the Religions of Peace and Piety, or Gandhianism’ for riding mankind of from the scourge of terrorism. Surely, such powerful message superior to hitherto obtained from God Himself would consider itself concerned more to save innocent men, women and children from being killed in the name of Islam.

It would prove a final attempt to stop fanaticism, fundamentalism and terrorism appearing to be defender of God and His Revelation. Any emancipator of humanity from the scourge of terrorism can vehemently claim Revelation from God, the Almighty. Unfortunately, such invention or recovery of another Religion, based on some kind of revelation directly or through some Prophet, Messenger or Avatar is not likely to happen. Even if it is made to happen, it would not be acceptable to the men and women of 21st century.

2. Failure of Liberals:

Another offshoot comes from the liberals. Liberals both Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere are in majority. But they are unable to stop the terrorists from committing such heinous crimes. Particularly, Muslim liberals, fail to reject jihadis ‘claims that the terrorists cannot be judges unto themselves and have divine sanction to use force.

Terrorism happens to be the ideology of the super-sovereigns. It depends only on the individual understanding, training and education of the terrorists that to what extent they would, in the prevailing manner, fight for the cause of religion. But, unfortunately, as supporters of use of force and violence for religion, all stand along with the terrorists.

Inability of liberals and non-Muslims to oppose jihadi or religious terrorism is very much prominent in the field of supremacy of state. Forgetting the role of modern state, they consider the non-believers, even sympathisers of the West, US, Israel, Hinduism etc. as criminals and connive at the acts of the terrorists. Even the liberals do not accept that state now is the supreme, secular and sovereign organisation, claiming monopoly of obedience of all citizens.

The liberals too maintain that state has to be subordinated to religion. They do not like to permit state to stand over and above all individuals, groups and organisations. They regard only divine law as superior to all other laws. In the field of interna­tional relations, states are placed next to the United Nations Organization – an effective confederation of 191 states. They claim even the UNO subor­dinate to Islam.

Because of their innate commitment to the religious fundamentals, the liberals remain unable to isolate orthodox Muslims from supporting jihadi terrorism and eschew their indirect support to terrorists. Most of the liberal interpretations of Islam have largely been to justify the use of violence by the individual believers on old lines. This results in permitting the continuation of terrorism and breaking of civil laws. These liberals fruitlessly continue to permit jihadi (war) when it is no more permissible to do so.

As the liberals can be declared as renegade or kafir, they cannot tell the believers that now no individual or organisation or community has the right to exercise force and violence except in a very narrow area of ‘self-defence’. They are unable to inform or educate the terrorists that now state has taken over all of their earlier functions; under the universal ‘rule of law’, democracy has evolved means and methods to redress injustice, oppression and exploitation; anyone using violence stands against the ‘rule of law’ and the constitution; and, a practitioner of violence can, therefore, be treated as a criminal, rebel or insurgent.

If they muster courage to do so, they rightly fear that conser­vative kazis and mullas would declare them as anti-religion, renegades and Satan (evil). Unfortunately, the liberals also forget that maintaining apathy or silence amounts to providing moral and religious support to the terrorists. Thus, the liberals, because of the basic call of Islam and their submission to them, cannot go in a different direction.

3. Solution through Law:

For this purpose, the UNO can prove to be the most appropriate body to solve this problem. The Security Council can pass a resolution and constitute a high power body which would, upholding the principles of democracy, freedom and human rights, be authorised to appoint two expert committees of scholars. Its success would lie in finding out suitable and impartial persons to do the job of separating pure and simple religion from religion-related fundamentalism.

The First Expert Committee consisting of scholars and practitioners of various religions would be formed to trace out portions, parts, sentences, sayings or statements of the holy books which the extremists and fundamentalists claim to have authorised them to resort to terrorism for divine goals.

They should be able to find out and explain the correct meaning and application of controversial divine directions that are maligned by the fundamentalists for their cruel ends. The Second Expert Committee would collect literature, books, leaflets, newspapers and speeches of the leaders of the fundamentalists and terrorist organisations and compare and contrast them with the original statements of the Holy Books. It would determine the places and point out where the terrorists go beyond the permissible limits of law, society and government.

Such exercise would help them to ascertain criminality of the acts and intentions of the terrorists, their trainers and supporters. Conclusions drawn by these two expert committees would be reported to the high power body which would forward it to the UN. Their reports would be discussed and a resolution passed by majority in the General Assembly. It would be the responsibility of the Security Council to get the resolution implemented through the member-states, various UN organs and organisations including recognised NGOs.

On the basis of that resolution, the UN, and later on, other interna­tional bodies can declare that such commandments, directives etc. and their teaching excite and encourage terrorism, therefore, are illegal and against International Law, Human Rights, Democracy and Freedom. The member-states would be requested to frame, repeat, and reformulate laws accordingly, and implement them in letter and spirit. The Security Council Resolution no. 1373 and others already show the desired way.

Laws framed in this direction by a state or the world body would prevent, restrict and disallow every kind of preaching, inciting, training and encouraging people to indulge in spreading extremism, fundamentalism and terrorism. In that situation even the local authorities of the states, big and small, would be able to prevent and stop terrorism of all kinds. In this way, all terrorism in the making can be intercepted before it comes into existence. The huge task of eradication of worldwide terrorism, thus, would be decen­tralised and effectively implemented at different levels.

It should be propagated, recommended and reiterated again and again that none of the tenets of any religion inciting terrorism in any form, past or present, will be permitted to stand against the fundamentals of Human Rights. In fact, acceptance of Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not leave any room for existence and operation of Terrorism. But it lacks the teeth to fight against and eliminate it.” ‘ These provisions can be given a concrete shape by denying citizenship or entry into a country to a person if one does not subscribe to an anti-terror oath, to be prescribed by each and every state.

4. Existential Challenges:

To eliminate contemporary Terrorism, all orthodox Muslims in general, and fundamentalists and terrorists in particular, and the Isl
amic diehards should be motivated and encouraged to question and reconsider their basic tenets of Terror.’ The Islamists may not allow any other to do that. Those who do this are likely to meet fat was of death, torture and imprisonment. But, as human beings, they should be asked to listen to others. All of them are to be somehow told that if Allah is the Almighty, He can do everything for man and his cosmos directly.

Why should He supposedly act through some Messenger? God is not helpless or powerless without pronouncing some Message. He does not need to depend on the doings of own creation, the humans. For the Almighty there is no need to make revelation either at His own will or at man’s request through some human agency. The specific event of divine revelation, in effect, downgrades the status of the Almighty, who is All-pervading, just and All-creating. He is disabled and made partisan that way.

Why can He not do it so by using other own and natural means so as to benefit all men equally upon earth. Presence of some fanatic followers is not necessary to prove His Existence or the truth of His Revelation. Such assumption automatically deprives the rest and posterity from getting similar messages from Him for all time to come. Obviously the whole arrangement is to establish superiority of Islam over all other religions making them redundant, ineffective or invalid. Plurality of religions disappears or dies in the Islamic manifesto.

If God (or Allah) is everywhere, and is all powerful, there is no need of His dependence on some people – extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists, to prove His Existence by killing and destroying others. God does not require proving that He granted Revelation/Special Message to a particular community, much less through some Incarnation, Prophet or Messenger. Acceptance of the need of any Incarnation, Prophet or Messenger to learn Divine Discipline makes Him powerless, limited, and dependent.

It is an insult to God to attribute to Him that He himself felt need to do so. No person can claim to know timings, place and need of God’s desire or feeling to make Revelation. The Almighty God as Impartial Judge and Controller of Creation cannot make a particular revelation for a particular people. Knowledge of such a God or Revelation cannot be confined to a particular place, in a particular language, addressed to and through a particular person or community, and meant for some particular Objective or Mission.

A Message as such can never be the last, final and irreversible. Creation by Him does not stop. God cannot be bound by His own Message. How an intelligent man can be sure that somewhere, some such Message or Revelation took place. How can one believe without some valid proof that the Revelation has that particular Form, specific Contents and hidden or open Meaning. Who would witness that God Himself uttered that particular Revelation? Would God not have been God without making that Revelation?

Even if God made that Revelation, the utterances of God or Prophet appearing in the past cannot be right for the man of today. Therefore, a man should not accept all that what has been said and written in the Holy Books by order, threat or teaching thrust upon in childhood or thereafter. Why is there no room for the use of reason or arguments or modernity in religious matters? Intuition cannot compel others to obey its bidding.”

Why should a man, community or group of people of today accept a particular Revelation: the Quran, the Bible, the Gita, and others? Why and how should they believe that it had happened in the past at a particular time and place and among the members of some particular community and made in a particular language and is useful, last and final one? On this questionable basis, a terrorist has no authority to compel others to do what he likes.

A Revelation cannot be acceptable to or be thrust on others even if a large number of fanatic followers believe in it. If some followers of any Religion feel and do like that, why should others feel and like to do the same? What would happen if some other people claim Revelation in the same manner and determine to execute its teachings in the manner of Islamic terrorists or jehadis?

Under the prevailing form of democracy, rule of law and world community, no one can be equipped with the divine, even civil, right to use force in ‘self-defence’ and fight against oppression anywhere in the world. Under UN Charter no one can have any divine injunction to wage wars and convert peoples and communities.’ No such right can be legitimised for liberating a people in this nuclear age even if they have been oppressed and tyrannised. They have to seek redressal through courts and parliaments.

Coming under the control and command of the terrorists or fundamen­talists simply means elimination of other religions and communities. This eliminates plurality of religions world over. Hardly anyone would like to see such Revelation to be the only religion of the world. A country may not like to permit citizenship, even residence, to any brand of fanatics who consider themselves to be at war, when living in Non-Islamic states, till they are ruled over by Islam.

In fact, Islam of terrorists and the Modern State cannot go together.”^ No modern state can be organised and operated on the tenets of Terrorism and vice-versa. That is not possible within a democratic set up. The believers are asked to bring non-Muslims to their faith. On particular occasions, they are allowed to harass, punish, torture and kill the non-believers, particularly the idolaters. Some religions require absolute faith in religion and do not allow supremacy of state, law and other regional and global arrangements.

A large number of orthodox Muslims indulging in contemporary Terrorism do not consider themselves bound by the Constitution or Judiciary as it clashes with the teachings of the Quran. Their Faith of Violence is not ready to accept and implement the ‘rule of law’ in the modern sense of the term. Most of the Islamic states do not like to abide by interna­tional laws and implement the resolutions of the UN. It is also a mistake to think that terrorism can be guided by the US and Europe, or even by the sponsor states.’

There is little doubt that ‘the world is facing a dangerous escalation of violence by extremists and fundamentalism who are the self-proclaimed enemies of free and democratic family of nations. The key for world peace and security cannot be left in the hands of terrorist organisations and their sponsor states who publicly proclaim their evil strategy.”

Some scholars feel the need to focus on ideas, and the need to alter the ‘dynamics in the minds of men’ that legitimise the use of indiscriminate violence. The latter has, according to them, arisen out of the policies of western powers as well as authoritarian rulers of Islamic states who use extremism in Islam as an instrument of strategy.” Huntington advises the ‘West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these (Confucian and Islamic) civilisations.

It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civili­sations and the ways in which people in those civilisations see their interests.’

But this is not enough. Perhaps, for their survival and safety, liberal democracies, and their leaders will have to take steps towards “Anti-Terrorism”. They will have to repudiate all concepts, ethos, strategies, and goals of terrorism.

The world community or the UN will have to, irrespective of the claims, origins, grievances, and preparations of the terrorist outfits, attack, destroy, and eliminate, fiercely and forcefully, all elements – men, material, and weaponry, including teaching and training camps. Wherever they are, and, whatever be their colour, creed, ethnicity, identity, origin and culture, they have to be done away with. In no case, the terrorists
and their sponsors, should be permitted to possess WMDs and nuclear weapons.

Contemporary terrorism, practiced in the form of ruthless ‘violence’, has to be earmarked, targeted, and attacked. Objects of attack include specific contents of terrorist teachings, its teachers, trainers, organisation and weapons of terror. Its supporters and financiers also stand on the same footing. But the programme “Fight against Terrorism” cannot be undertaken unless the Fighters undertake their task in a more serious and effective manner.

The outcome of the war between the Terrorists and these Fighters would depend ultimately on the superiority of will, weapons, action, and organisation of science and technology. Future survival and progress of mankind will depend on the achievements of these anti-terrorist Fighters in their war against Terrorism. For this everyone will have to make resolve, act and go ahead more effectively than the forces of Contemporary Terrorism.

Upload and Share Your Article: