Democracy in the UK. Through Revolution or Evolution?

The United Kingdom is a unique country. The English Channel served as a barrier between the British Isles and the Continental Europe. There has been no successful military invasion of the islands by a Continental power after the Norman Conquest in 1066, except for the ‘invasion’ of William of Orange in 1688, although numerous attempts were made by Phillip II of Spain, Napoleon and Hitler among others over the Centuries. This relative isolation catalyzed the formation of a unique system of government which in turn became a role model for many other States and people. Few years before the outbreak of World War I, an American scholar, Lowell, described the British system with these words, which were quoted by Beer (1982, p.1):

“Measured by the Standard of duration, absence of violent commotions, maintenance of law and order, general prosperity and contentment of the people, and by the extent of its influence on the institutions and political thought of other lands, the English Government has been one of the most remarkable in the world”

Democracy in the United Kingdom

It is hard to find a precise definition for democracy. The origin of the word was from Athens, where the city-state was ruled by participatory democracy. This model is seldom seen today, with the possible exception of Switzerland. It is expected that democracy would safeguard the basic human rights such as freedom of thought, speech and expression. Also it is expected that the government should represent the people of the State.

Against this backdrop, it can be said that democracy has been established in the United Kingdom. Its constitution, albeit unwritten, is largely based on customs and safeguards the basic rights. The people elect the legislature and it has the power to pass laws. The rule of law is an important aspect of British society. However, it is interesting to investigate whether these changes were the result of the revolutions in the 17th Century or a result of gradual evolution.

A Historical Note: Before the Revolutions

Strictly speaking, the United Kingdom did not come into being until 1707 when England and Scotland were united by Acts of Union passed in both parliaments. In 1800, Ireland joined when the Irish parliament passed its own death warrant, the Act of Union, 1800. Although the kingdoms had separate legislatures before the said dates, they had the same monarch from 1603 and were involved in the English Civil War, also referred to as the Puritan Revolution. However, England has been the leader of the three in political development. It was the English, backed by their large population, who had the reins of power in the United Kingdom.

The Magna Carta, first agreed upon in 1215, was the first tangible turn towards democracy in post 1066 English history. It recognized that no freeman could be punished without following the law of the land, everyone had the right to justice and the king’s will was not arbitrary. (May 2009)

This fact did not ensure either a serious limitation of the monarch’s prerogatives or the protection of liberty and freedom. In England, after the establishment of the Church of England, religious freedom was practically non-existent. During 1577 and 1603 alone, 123 Catholics were executed solely because of their religion. (Hughes 1974). The parliament did not have a prominent role in the government. It was subject to dissolution by the monarch, who was still supreme. The only way the parliament could seriously hinder the monarch was by cutting off finances. However, the monarch employed alternative measures to raise funds. Naturally, religion and taxation were important causes of the English Civil War.

Revolutions

A revolution, in its political meaning, is a fundamental change-such as the overthrow of a government-usually in a short period of time. The war between the Royalists led by Charles I and the Parliamentarians led by the Puritans is sometimes termed as the Puritan Revolution. The personal rule of Charles I without convening the parliament and religious prosecution led by Archbishop Laud gave rise to widespread discontent. (Underdown 1984). Events led to the execution of the king and the abolition of the monarch. The interregnum lasted for eleven years and was followed by the ‘restoration’ of the monarchy in 1660.

Despite the name ‘revolution’, the events of 1640-1660 did not result in lasting steps towards the establishment of democracy, or anything else. The contemporary utopian writer Winstanley claimed in his The Law of the Freedom published in 1652 that even though the monarchy was gone, little had changed. (Bowmen 2005) Even at the zenith of the ‘revolution’, it was a limited one, never undertaking extensive reform. (Underdown 1984) The principle reason for this was that many of the parliamentarians themselves were quite conservative. They united to remove repressive Charles I, but had no precise concept as to what would be a good alternative. Abolishing the monarchy weakened them as whatever evil there was the majority of Englishmen were reluctant to completely remove the monarchy as an institute. A reformed monarch may have had a more lasting effect than the Commonwealth, as events of 1688-89 would show.

The English Revolution of 1688-89, also known as the Glorious Revolution, was brought about by the unpopularity of James II. There may have not been another monarch who managed to alienate almost all his subjects within such a short period of time as James II did. His actions convinced both Whigs and Tories that the king was trying to Catholicize England and limit the power of the parliament. Meanwhile, William of Orange, whose wife was the heiress to the English throne, was using various forms of propaganda to further their cause. (Schwoerer 1977) The birth of a son to James prompted his opponents into action. William landed at Torbay in November and after James II had fled, he ascended the throne with his wife as a joint ruler.

The Bill of Rights of 1689 clipped many prerogatives of the monarchy and handed over many powers to the parliament both legislative and financial. (Hennessy, p. 39) The parliament could decide on who would become the monarch while recognizing that the monarchy would have to remain in one family. (Stewart 1938, p. 27) By the Act of Settlement in 1701, it was the parliament which decided the heir of William III.

However, the real power flows were not yet defined. Institutions such as the Cabinet were yet to be formed. The English government was still a fragile system just after the revolution. Hennessy, p. 40)

In the democratization of England, and later the United Kingdom, the Glorious Revolution had some impact. But it was not revolutionary. Even a Century after the events of 1689, about 95 per cent of men and all women in the United Kingdom were without the vote whereas is certain ‘rotten boroughs’ a handful of voters sent a representative to the House of Commons. Meanwhile, religious freedom was still not established. However, in some aspects, it was well advanced compared to contemporary standards. For instance, half the population was literate. They were aware that, whatever the shortcomings may be, they lived under the rule of the law. (Good 2007)

Development of the British Democracy

The Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom were no longer persecuted like the Elizabethan era. They had the right to worship, but the right to vote and hold public offices were not granted. Things started to change with the gradual softening of the prejudice against the Catholics by late eighteenth century. For instance, in 1793, they won the right to vote. (Blakeley & Collins, p. 100) Advocators of Catholic emancipation mainly focused on the English Catholics during this time. (Sommers 2008) However, O’Connell and his Catholic Association managed to divert the attention towards the Irish cause. In 1828, he ran for a by-election although he could not hold public office, and won. Fearing the worst case scenario of many Catholics following his example, the Tories were forced to pass the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829. (Blakeley & Collins, p. 100) This gave the Catholics the right to hold public office, albeit subjected to a separate oath. Soon afterwards, the Irish electorate was reduced by the raising of property qualifications for the voters in Ireland. However, the Catholic Emancipation Act was the first of many reforms to come throughout the nineteenth century.

Irish question was a thorn in the side of British governments and her democracy. A Home Rule Bill was proposed by Gladstone in 1886, only to be defeated when a section of his own party deserted him. Another bill was defeated by the Lords in 1893. A third bill, proposed in 1912 after the Act of Parliament had clipped the wings of the Lords was passed through, but sadly the World War intervened. (Blakeley & Collins, p. 175) Ireland, and later Northern Ireland, reduced the credibility of democracy in the United Kingdom.

Soon after the Catholic emancipation, the enfranchisement of the British people began. The Great Reform Bill of 1832 removed the ‘rotten boroughs’, referred to as the ‘the rotten part of the constitution’ by William Pitt the elder some decades back. (Blakeley & Collins, p. 103) The number of eligible voters was doubled to about a million out of sixteen million people. However, the Bill was not delivered on a platter. When the first Bill proposed by Lord Russell was not accepted, Lord Grey asked for dissolution of parliament and was granted. The Whig campaign for “the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill” won them the election. (Blakeley & Collins, p. 103) But their second bill was defeated by the Lords. A third bill was accepted when William IV agreed to create peers in order to vote for it at the Lords, thus negating the influence of the Upper Chamber.

This ‘swamping’ was threatened only once more in the history of the United Kingdom. (Stewart, p. 38) It was before the Act of Parliament, 1911, by which the House of Lords was reduced to a ceremonial position. No swamping will be required any more.

Enfranchisement of the people was continued through several more reform bills in 1867, 1884, 1918 and 1928. It is noteworthy that the whole process took a century to be complete whereas in a normal revolution it would have been carried out even within a matter of hours.

As noted earlier, the politics of the United Kingdom was in the hands of the English largely due to their overwhelming population. Only in recent years have the British granted parliaments to Scotland and Wales. However, they have been granted considerable powers over their activities.

Recent Issues

After 9/11 and 7/7, the case of immigrants has arisen more than ever in the United Kingdom. International terrorism, Islamophobia and the rise of the Nationalists are challenges faced by the Western Europeans in general. The former barrier which separated the British Isles from the Continent-the English Channel-is immaterial in today’s context. The Muslims in Britain are apprehensive since the anti-discriminatory laws are based on race and not religion. (Allen 2005) With some European States taking undemocratic actions targeted towards the Muslims, the challenge for the British government would be to democratically accommodate all interest groups and contain the anti-democratic forces on the rise.

Conclusion

In the 1930s, Laski (1938, 13) noted that “….. [after the civil war] for two hundred and fifty years, all its[English government’s] fundamental changes have since been affected by peaceful compromise”. Former Prime Minister Asquith declared in early 1900s, that there would be an overnight revolution if decimal currency was introduced in Britain. But six decades later, it was carried out ‘without any commotion.’ Such is the nature of democracy of the United Kingdom. The modern challenges may not allow for leisurely evolution. All eyes will be on the ‘role model of governments’ to see how it will face these challenges.

References:

Allen C (2005) From Race to Religion: The New Face of Discrimination in T. Abbas (ed.) Muslim Britain Zed Books, London, pp. 49-66.

Beer SH (1982) Britain Against Itself: The Political Contradictions of Collectivism, Faber and Faber, London

Blakeley BL, Collins J (1993) Documents in British History vol II: 1688 to Present. 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, Boston USA

Bowmen, Glen (2005) Justice in a World Upside Down: Utopian Visions in the English Civil War and Revolution, Contemporary Justice Review vol 8, no 4. 27 November 2010.

Good, K (2007) The Drive for Participatory Democracy in Nineteenth Century Britain, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, vol 47, number 3 27 November 2010

Hennessy P (2001) The Prime Minister: The Office and its Holders Since 1945, Penguin, London.

Hughes P (1974) Royal Authority and the Suppression of Life and Religious Liberty in RL Greaves (ed.) Elizabeth I, Queen of England. D.C. Heath and Company USA, pp. 149-56


Laski HJ (1938), Parliamentary Government in England: A Commentary, John Allen and Unwin, London.

May, L, (2009) Magna Carta, the Interstices of Procedure, and Guantanamo, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law vol 42. issue 91. 27 November 2010

Ragsdale H (2003) Comparative Historiography of the Contemporary Revolutions: English, French and Russian, The Journal of Historical Society III: 3-4 27 November 2010

Schwoerer LG (1977) Propaganda in the Revolution of 1688-89 American Historical Review, Vol. 82 Issue 4 27 November 2010

Sommers SM, (2008) Sir John Coxe Hippisley: That ‘Busy Man’ in the Cause of Catholic Emancipation, Parliamentary History, Vol. 27 Issue 1 27 November 2010

Stewart, Michael. (1938) The British Approach to Politics, John Allen and Unwin, London.

Underdown D (1984) What was the English Revolution. History Today, vol 34 issue 3. 27 November 2010

Foreign Policy of Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike

In 1956, Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike won a landslide election victory to become the fourth Prime Minister of Ceylon. He was notably different to his predecessors in both domestic and foreign policies. As a reputed statesman of the late 1940s and the 1950s, his foreign policy is an area which needs to be examined in detail.

This was the era of national independence movements. While colonialism was in decline and newly independent nations were emerging, the Cold War was also making its presence felt in another political theatre. These new developments meant that new nations were thrust into power politics straight away and had to decide which way to choose. While some countries chose either of the two camps-capitalist or socialist-some nations chose neither in particular. This was the beginning of the concept of non-alignment.

Bandaranaike was a noted statesman of the ‘third way.’ He had made it clear even before he became Prime Minister. Even during the Second World War, he put his dream of international cooperation into words when he reportedly commented on the Atlantic Charter signed between Britain and the U.S.A. He stated at his presidential address to the Sinhala Maha Sabha in September 1942 that, “….It would be a magnificent act if England, America, Russia and China formulated an Eastern Charter for all Eastern peoples.”

This shows the keen interest Bandaranaike had on international developments. This became more evident when he represented Ceylon in the Asian Relations Conference at Delhi in 1947 and again in the conference regarding the Indonesian situation at the same city in January 1949, where he spoke on Asian regionalism and cooperation. However, at this early stage, Bandaranaike did not actively engage in debates regarding Ceylonese foreign policy at the national legislature. His first major speech at the parliament on foreign policy was in 1950, when he criticized the suggestions of the left wing parliamentarians of an “independent” foreign policy and quitting the Commonwealth. As a Cabinet Minister, he was bound to defend his government. However, while expressing the advantages of the Commonwealth for a small nation, he expressed his admiration for Nehru’s foreign policy, which was the root of the concept of non-alignment.

This admiration was a consistent feature of Bandaranaike’s foreign policy. In the above speech, he argued that the left-wing parliamentarians were suggesting an “unpractical” policy for a small nation. However, even after he left the UNP in 1951, Bandaranaike continued to admire non-alignment rather than stronger ties with the two power blocs as suggested by some other politicians. While the left was advocating strong ties with the socialist bloc, the UNP government was becoming increasingly pro-Western. In July 1953, Bandaranaike made his views clear when he criticized the Dudley Senanayake foreign policy in the parliament.

“I say, for heaven’s sake, be friendly with England or America or anybody else, but do not commit yourself to any one of them…….. As far as I can see, the wisest foreign policy that is being followed in the world today by any leading statesman is that of Pandith Jawaharlal Nehru….”

This was a clear indication of Bandaranaike supporting the neutralist non-aligned policies in foreign relations. During the premiership of Sir John Kotelawala, Bandaranaike vehemently criticized the UNP foreign policy, which was becoming increasingly pro-Western despite the declared “neutralism.” Kotelawala was ready to ally himself even with the “devil himself” against Communism. While Bandaranaike was no supporter of Communism, he criticized this tendency of Kotelawala which was epitomized in the latter’s speech at Bandung. Bandaranaike was critical of the Prime minister’s conduct at the Asia-Africa summit because as he thought, Kotelawala’s action lacked diplomatic courtesy and digressed from the main points of the agreement with regard to the agenda of Bandung.

Foreign Relations as Prime Minister

In his first policy statement as Prime Minister of Ceylon, which was read by the Governor- General on April 20, 1956, Bandaranaike clearly stated his foreign policy statements and goals. He stated that: “In its foreign policy, my Government will not align with any power blocs. The position of bases at Katunayake and Trincomalee will be reviewed…… consideration will be given to exchange of diplomatic representatives with countries in which Ceylon is not at present represented.”

Bandaranaike viewed the removal of the two bases as essential for the independence and neutrality of Ceylon. The initiation of the diplomatic relations with the socialist bloc was to be also important for her neutrality. Also it was driven by economic considerations. Ceylon was still tied to the West, especially Britain, in the economic sphere. Diversification of trade was essential for her to be independent of one or several countries economically, therefore also helping her to be neutral in a proper sense. Bandaranaike once stated: “we are faced with the problem of converting a colonial society into a free society and a problem within it of achieving task in the context of a world which itself is changing…… we like to be friendly with all and like to obtain what is advantageous to our own society while following our own way of life”

The way Bandaranaike went about securing his two main goals showed his statesmanship and diplomacy. From the very beginning, he negotiated with the British government on his intention of seeing the military bases out of Ceylon. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ meeting in July, 1956, became a very important platform for him to express his views. He held discussions with the British counterpart, Sir Eden, in during this gathering. Discussions between the two statesmen were continued in November when Bandaranaike passed London on his way to and from New York to attend the UN General Assembly. The bases were withdrawn by the British in October and November 1957. On the occasion of the transfer of the Katunayake RAF base on November 1, 1957, Bandaranaike stated that “Ceylon’s independence is complete today.” Although it is a contentious statement, it shows the importance he gave for the withdrawal of the bases.

However, this was done without damaging Anglo-Ceylonese friendship. The Ceylon Prime Minister even decided not to visit Egypt on his way back from New York in 1956 for fear of antagonizing the British. However, he was critical of the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt and made it clear to his British counterpart also.

Bandaranaike was very careful to keep the Western countries informed of his decision to initiate diplomatic ties with USSR and China. He told the House of Representatives of the Parliament on his return from New York that he had informed President Eisenhower that there “should be no misunderstanding on their part when we chose to pursue in the interest of humanity, friendly relations with Communist powers.” In 1957, Ceylon established diplomatic relations with both USSR and China and cultivated friendships with other Eastern European countries. However, when he was deliberating the establishment of diplomatic relations with the German Democratic Republic, many Western nations protested and he decided against it as a result.

These actions show Bandaranaike’s neutralism coupled with pragmatism. His achievements and reputation in the international arena speaks volumes of the success of his policies. The eminent statesmen who called on him at Colombo during 1956-59 included Harold MacMillan of Britain, Menzies of Australia, Peter Nash of New Zealand, Diefenbacker of Canada and Deputy Chancellor Erhard of Federal Republic of (West) Germany. Further more, Chou En-lai, Soekarno and Nehru also called upon him. During this period when Ceylon also suffered immensely due to devastating floods, she received foreign credit from both camps. Among them, the USSR gave Rs. 142.8 million and the USA gave nearly Rs. 160 million.

Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike vehemently refuted critics of neutralism who suggested that neutralism is being uncommitted and being blissfully indifferent to everything by isolating oneself. At the UN General Assembly in 1956, Bandaranaike uttered a few sentences by which the neutralism and the concept of non-alignment can be clearly defined. “We are supposed to be uncommitted nations. I strongly object to the word. We are committed to the hilt. We are committed to preserve decency in dealings between nations; we are committed to the cause of justice and of freedom as much as anyone is. That, briefly, is our position in Asia.”

It was a grave tragedy that such a committed statesman had to end his life as a victim of an assassin.

The Decline of the Rajarata Civilization

Rajarata was the cradle of Sri Lanka's ancient civilization. then in the 13th Century A.D. it collapsed and was largely abandoned. Even though there are many reasons, one of them seems to be the key. Read it here.

Sir John Kotelawala Blasts Communism at Bandung in 1955

There is another form of colonialism, however, about which many of us represented here are perhaps less clear in our mind and to which some of us perhaps would not agree to apply the term Colonialism at all. Think, for example, of those satellite states under Communist domination in Central and Eastern Europe-of Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. Are not these colonies as much as any of the colonial territories of Africa and Asia are? And if we are united in our opposition to colonialism, should it not be our duty openly to declare our opposition to Soviet colonialism as much as to Western imperialism?


Taken from

Nissanka, H.S.S. Sri Lanka's Foreign Policy: A Study in Non-Alignment. Vikas Publishing House, India (1984).

For Details please go to Dissent at 1955 Bandung Conference

Gallipoli

As in many operations before and after, the Gallipoli campaign of 1915 was destined to become a failed attempt to end a war quickly. A success would easily led to an early end to the first world war, which would have resulted in unbelievable outcomes. For instance, the Bolshevik revolution may not have occurred had the war ended earlier. But, all these are just speculations. But, what can be said for certain is that the extremely amateur manner in which the campaign was conducted led to a disaster which could have been avoided.

On the first weeks of the war in the summer of 1914, Turkey remained neutral although the allies may have suspected a leaning towards the Central Powers. The seizure of two ships which were built for the Turkish navy in British shipyards would not have made a positive impression on the Turks. The Germans agreed to replace these ships with their own ships, Goeben and Breslau which may have served to justify the suspicion of the Allies. The ships were placed under the Turkish flag although Admiral Souchon and his German crew still manned the ships. However, what made the Allies declare war against Turkey was the bombing of Russian Black Sea ports by these ships in late October.

The Gallipoli peninsular, which is a strategic location on the entrance to the Black Sea from the Mediterranean, became a focal point of attention in Allied war planning. The relative ease by which the Allies sank the Turkish ship Medusha in December 1914 gave a false impression about the vulnerability of the region. Clearing the way towards Istanbul and relieving the Russians from Turkish campaign in the Caucasus were the main Allied objectives of the attack on Gallipoli. The occupation of Gallipoli which would have meant the fall of Istanbul in due course, would have made possible for the Allies to threaten Austra-Hungary and would have prevented the entrance of Bulgaria to the war.

The fact that such an important campaign was carried out in a grossly unprofessional manner is highly disturbing. There was no real preparation for the campaign, partly because the Allies were deceived by their earlier successes in the vicinity. When General Ian Hamilton was handed over the command in March 1915, his knowledge of the operational area and the enemy was minimal. His sources of information were based on some tourist guides and maps and a handbook on the Turkish Army. Unfortunately, they were not preparing for a tour but a military expedition for which they were not prepared.

Furthermore, the communication between the Army and the Navy was such that the information available about the Turkish artillery and troop positions were not given to the Army. Also, preliminary forays in the vicinity gave ample warning to the Turks as to where the Allied war machine would strike. The fact that General Hamilton was found to be a less than capable commander added to the misery of the Allies.

On the contrary, the Turkish side was fortunate to have not one but two talented commanders in the form of Mustapha Kemal and the German General Otto Liman von Sanders to lead their defense of Gallipoli. The Turkish commander showed the early signs of the talents which he would use to transform the Turkish nation itself within a few years after the defeat of 1918. The German on the other hand was responsible for the modernization of the Turkish Armed forces which would have been decades backward from the standards of the Allied armies just a few years back.

The campaign in Gallipoli started badly with some Allied ships being damaged or even sunk by mines in the narrow straits. The troubles did not ease after the actual landings with more blunders leading to a catastrophe which could have been avoided.

Even after the initial setbacks the Allied commanders had high hopes of success in Gallipoli. In October General Charles Monroe replaced General Hamilton and it was supposed that sufficient reinforcements would tip the balance towards the Allied cause. In November however, when Field Marshal Herbert Kitchener visited Gallipoli he found the situation to be hopeless. Withdrawal was advised and carried upon. By January 8th 1916, all Allied troops had left the peninsular.

It is true that the campaign caused more casualties among Turks and pinned down a considerable force of their army. But the fact that a similar number of Allied divisions which could have been used elsewhere were also pinned down, negates this advantage. Had the campaign was carried out in a more professional manner or had the troops were used in a more useful manner, the outcome of the world war itself might have been decided earlier than November 1918.

Football World Cup: The Beginning

The idea of staging a world cup for football was entertained even at the time of the establishment of the FIFA in 1904. But until the 1920s it did not receive considerable support because there was no real need for it. The Olympic football tournament served as a world because there was no question of eligibility for the players. Those days, the game was played by amateurs.

However, by the 1920s, some major football powers such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria introduced professionalism to their game. Therefore, their best players suddenly found themselves ineligible for the Olympics. Moreover, there was serious doubts regarding the amateur status of some of the South American teams participating in the tournament which undermined the credibility of the Olympics as a world cup for football.

The decision by the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics organizing committee to drop football from the tournament due to the lack of popularity in United States was the turning point. In the 1928 Amsterdam congress of the FIFA, its president Jules Rimet put proposed a motion to hold a separate world cup of their own, open to any FIFA member. The motion was passed with a majority of 25-5.

Holland, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay were initially enthusiastic about hosting the inaugural tournament. But the South Americans who were the reigning Olympic champions eventually received the honour to host it. In 1930, they were celebrating the centenary of their independence and rather over generously, they offered to provide the travel and accommodation expenses of all participants. Meanwhile, the other countries systematically withdrew their initial offers after realizing the financial burdens of staging such a tournament.

Only thirteen-including just four European-countries participated in this tournament which was the only world cup football tournament to be held entirely in one city, Montevideo. Although France realized that their team was not up to the standards of the South Americans, they were obliged to send a team because they were instrumental in making the tournament a reality. Romania is said to have participated due to the support of their football loving monarch, Carol. However, many wondered why Belgium and Yugoslavia chose to embark in the long voyage when all European countries which initially offered to host the tournament did not send their teams.
The tournament started when the French met Mexico and Belgium met USA in two simultaneously started matches on the 13th of July 1930. The Frenchman Lucien Laurent was the first to score a goal in World Cup football history.

As expected, the South American rivals Argentina and Uruguay met at the Centenary Stadium on the 30th of the same month for the final. Argentinian supporters who arrived in Uruguay crossing the river Plate to watch the match were searched for weapons, which dampened the sporting spirit of the game. The rivals met in a hardly fought battle in and the hosts emerged as winners.

Despite the low participation from European nations which led the Uruguayans to boycott the 1934 tournament, the inaugural football world cup was considered a success. It was the beginning of a great sporting event which captivates the whole world every four years.

India-Sixty Years a Republic

On January 26, 1950, Dr. Rajendra Prasad became the first President in the newly proclaimed republic of India. Just over two years had passed since the independence from the British and the bitter memories of partition. During the small period of time India experienced the trauma of partition, war against Pakistan over Kashmir, assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and war against the Nizham of Hyderabad. As the world’s largest democracy severed the last official ties with the British crown, it was starting a journey which will transform it into a nation with many contradictions.

Despite being a nuclear power, India is still largely a poor country. A third of the worlds poor live in India. Illiteracy, the caste system, role of women in the society and British colonial policies have all contributed to this. Although largely an agricultural country, India has not been immune from chronic food shortages. Feeding the mammoth population has been the primary challenge to successive Indian governments.

The governments have taken many steps to alleviate poverty including subsidizing food and other essential items, improving agriculture, price supports, raising the level of education and spreading awareness on family planning. According to the World Bank Group, these have borne fruit over the years. According to the World Bank, in 1980, 60% of Indians were below US $ 1.25 PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) level, hence in abject poverty. It has improved to 42% in 2005. However, 46% of the children are suffering from malnutrition.

The political situation in India is also a source of concern. After the initial unrest, post-independent India enjoyed political stability due to the overwhelming popularity of the Indian National Congress. But from late 1960s, the grand old party gradually lost its former hegemony. The rise of regional political parties was facilitated by the language policy of the Congress party in the sixties. Secessionist movements calling for separate states (such as in Telangana) or outright independence (such as in Assam, Punjab, Kashmir etc.) are found in virtually every state. When the growing influence of the Maoists-which is in itself facilitated by the abject poverty of the rural population-is added to the equation, the outcome seems to be frightening.