Concept of Liberty and

its Evlotuion

-Balaji P Nadar

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Development of Liberal Theory and Practice

III. Liberalism in Britain: From Laissez Faire to the

Welfare State

1. Utilitarianism

2. Reform Act,1832

3. Democratic Liberalism

IV. Liberalism in America

1. Jeffersonian Democracy

2. Democratic Liberalism

3. Progressivism

4. Social Liberalism

V. Liberalism in India

VI. Conclusion

Introduction:

Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the

condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal

responsibility and free will. The conception of liberty is impacted by ideals concerning the social

contract as well as arguments that are concerned with the state of nature. The term Liberty is as

modern as its meaning. It is Spanish in origin, from the name of political party; the “Liberales”

that early in nineteenth century advocated constitutional government for Spain. Later Liberal was

a term taken over in other countries to designate a government, a party, a policy, an opinion that

favored freedom as opposed to authoritarianism. As a philosophy the concept of liberty does not

falls into the category of closed system of thought, with fixed, unchanging dogmas. Rather may

it be characterized as an attitude of mind toward life and life’s problems that stresses the values

of freedom for individuals, for minorities, and the nations.

Liberty according to L.T.Hobhouse, “is the belief that society can safely be

founded on this self-directing power of personality. The rule of liberty is just the application of

the rational method. It is the opening of the door to the appeal of reason, of imagination, of

social feeling; and except through the response this appeal there is no assured progress of

society 1.” According to the French political philosopher Montesquieu, the political liberty of

the subject is a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In

order to have this liberty, it is the requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not

be afraid of another2. Liberty is a beautiful word in any language. Its connotations have always

been appealing, noble, and high-minded. It is hard to find philosophers who inveigh against it,

and even harder to find politicians who advocate its suppression- except perhaps as a temporary

thing and for what they claim is a greater good. The adjective ‘liberal’ imputes loftiness of view,

concern with things of the spirit a respect of human decency. Its definition ran the gamut from

“one who wants someone else to support him, to think for him……. To protect him from those

1 L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism 123(New York ,1931).2 Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws(Translated by Nugent) 182(New York, 1900).

who would impose on him responsibilities,” to one who “acts as though he believes that man is

made in the image of god and that the nature, the development and the rise of that god-likeness

are his first duty and only wholly worthy employment”3. Liberty represents what I can do for

myself, free of possibility of legal interference by others. Liberty is the opposite of duty4. The

liberty according to the human person in medieval times was not the same thing as the liberty of

modern times- an absence of exterior restraint. It was rather the positive liberty of fulfillment.

The person was free to choose those means which were themselves morally neither good nor bad

in order to achieve his end in life. Society was thought to have the right and the duty establishing

those conditions which could be conducive to each person’s attaining his end of salvation, and it

was equipped with sanctions necessary for attaining its purpose of promoting the good life for

everyone. There was a general acceptance in the medieval society that there were objective

norms for the regulation of human conduct, that there were such things as truth and error, right

and wrong, human rights and duties, and these could be established by reason and by revelation.

Liberty implies the obligation by the government to refrain from interference with men’s

property rights unless specifically requested by their owners to limit them in a certain way for the

prevention of greater evils5.

The Development of Liberal Theory and Practice:

Liberalism was nurtured in the natural rights doctrines of the seventeenth century.

The Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) is widely held to be the main innovator of the

modern doctrine, and his mode of theorizing, involving the idea of a pre-political state of nature

and a social contract as the ground for political society, was taken up and given major

formulations by Hobbes and Locke in England and Benedictus de Spinoza (1632–1677) and

Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–1694) on the European continent. The reason for holding these

theories to be the ground in which liberalism grew is that they start with a presumption in favor

of individual liberty and limit liberty only to protect the equal rights of others or to provide the

public order considered necessary to secure everyone’s liberty to the greatest extent. All the

natural law theorists recognize that constraints on individual liberty are necessary if people are to

enjoy the maximum of equal liberty in a peaceful society, so it is rational for them to agree to

3 Thomas P Neill, The rise and Decline of Liberalism 3 (The Bruce Publishing Company, USA, 1953).4 G.W.Paton, A Text Book of Jurispuredence 255 (Oxford University Press, London, 1964).5 supra note 3 at p50.

establish a political society on the basis of their natural interests in liberty. The natural rights

theorists developed the central ideas of a liberal society. Their politics, however, was in many

cases far from being liberal. Despite the grounding of political society in a social contract and

thus apparently basing it on the consent of all, Grotius, Hobbes, and Pufendorf defended absolute

monarchy, while Locke and Spinoza restricted political rights to property owners. These

theorists' aim, therefore, was to construct a minimal social ethics that all could agree on while

leaving as much room as possible for each to decide for him-or herself what to believe and how

to live. Of course, it is always possible to say that the liberal view of just interaction still involves

a conception of the good life, namely one of maximum equal liberty. But this is a very thin

conception of the good that leaves people as free as possible to make their own choices.

Rights-based liberalism has two apparent weaknesses: It is not clear where the natural

rights come from, and no principled account of conflicts involving rights is given or seems to be

possible. Utilitarian-based liberalism offers a single solution to both. The principle of utility,

which tells moral agents to do those acts that will produce the greatest amount of utility, is

interpreted by the great liberal utilitarians to mean that one should act to bring about a society in

which individuals enjoy the standard liberal rights enumerated earlier in this entry. The principle

of utility, which tells moral agents to do those acts that will produce the greatest amount of

utility, is interpreted by the great liberal utilitarians to mean that one should act to bring about a

society in which individuals enjoy the standard liberal rights enumerated earlier in this entry.

Mill introduced significant modifications to the liberal theory he inherited from Bentham. One of

these is his extension of the liberty principle, which requires persons to be allowed to pursue

their own good in their own way so long as they do not harm others, to cover the coercive

pressure of public opinion mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the area of conduct falling within this

principle includes what Mill calls experiments in living. People should be encouraged to

experiment (so long as they do not harm others) in order to promote the long-term utility of the

human race.

Kant, the deeply anti-utilitarian and still very influential German philosopher,

identifies human beings' capacity for autonomy as the grounds for claiming the existence of a

natural right to an equal liberty. Autonomy is the capacity to govern oneself by freely imposing

rational laws on the operation of one's natural inclinations. In following one's inclinations even

through rational calculation, one is bound by causal laws operating independently of one's will.

One is free and self-determining only insofar as one's end is rational and self-imposed. One

achieves this in willing principles that are universal and apply to everyone. Kant's significance

lies not so much in his working out the implications of the principle of equal liberty but in his

invention of a new rational ground in autonomy for it. Contemporary liberals who still seek to

provide justifications for preferring liberalism to other social and political schemes are largely

either Kantians or utilitarians, with Kantians for the moment predominating. Post-Kantian

idealism, most elaborately developed by Hegel in Germany but also influential in Britain in the

second half of the nineteenth century through the writings of Thomas Hill Green, Francis Herbert

Bradley, and Bernard Bosanquet, historicizes and socializes the Kantian scheme. The general

idea is that historical forms of society and the reflective philosophies that arise in them are the

result of the struggle of human beings to grasp and actualize the free will inherent in their nature

as rational beings. This struggle culminates in the development of a liberal civil society and a

partially liberal state. A liberal self-organizing civil society in which all persons are responsible

for their own life economically and socially is necessary to develop in all the idea and partial

actualization of their autonomy.

Liberalism in Britain- From Laissez Faire to the Welfare State:

The nineteenth century is the liberal century in western history, the century

dominated as no other before or since by the middle class, whose victory was achieved in the

1830’s and whose influence was dominant until the outbreak of world war I. The triumph of

liberalism was not completed without resistance on the part of the established segments of

society, especially the aristocracy and the various established order constitutes the core of history

in the earlier half of the century. In 1815 conditions in England were more nearly perfect than

anywhere else in the world for carrying on the great liberal struggle and for its eventual triumph.

We can say that England is the birth place of liberalism. There it was born; there its growth has

been continuous; and there it has been accepted by virtually the entire nation. English liberalism

has had a distinctive national quality. It may be described as a complex of rights, privileges, and

immunities won by the nation in its long history. From the time of Magna Charta the privileges

of a minority were gradually extended until they become the rights of all Englishmen. Freedom,

broadening down “from precedent to precedent” becomes the national tradition.

Economic and social developments in England since 1750 had rendered the old

practical arrangements obsolete. The glorious revolution in 1688 had been directed against the

crown; it was a political revolution putting power in the hands of parliament controlled by the

land gentry. From the revolution of 1688 to the Reform Bill of 1832 English liberalism presents

a bare outline. Parliament, in theory representing the people, was chosen by few voters, chiefly

property owners. The Bill of Rights mainly dealt with the rights of parliament, and little with

those of the individual citizen.

Utilitarianism:

According to utilitarianism the primary forces controlling human action

were the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Bentham argues, “these natural forces

governed men in all they did, said, and thought. All his life man strives to achieve happiness

which is the outcome of material well-being, and each individual is the best judge of what is

conductive to his happiness”. Bentham and his followers were convinced that the then-existing

institutions and laws of Britain tended to promote the happiness of the few and the misery of the

many. They advocated the abolition of antiquated institutions and outworn laws and the

repudiation of confining traditions and customs that hampered man in the pursuit of his

happiness. Closely related to the utilitarians were the philosophic radicals, a group of ‘eggheads’

in politics. They advocated radicals, i.e, root reforms in the political and the social order as the

only alternative to revolution. Such reforms could be made peacefully, they contended, provided

the control of parliament passed from the hands of aristocrats to those of the middle class.

According to them middle class constituted the ‘public’ and its interests, the public welfare.

Reform Act of 1832:

First and foremost, the advance of liberalism was bound up

with the reform of parliament. As the reform movement progressed it enlisted the powerful

support of the Whig party, the custodian of the liberal tradition of the revolution of 1688.

Parliament was finally induced to pas the historic Reform Bill of 1832. As the Reform Bill took

shape, it was backed by all people of property except the landlord whose control of parliament

was threatened by any change6. The aim of the Reform Bill, in the minds of those who pushed it,

was to put the middle class in power, nothing further was intended. Macaulay explained to

parliament that the chief cause of disorder in society was the failure to adjust political power to

economic changes. He said “The object of this Bill is to correct those monstrous disproportions,

6 supra note 3 at p3.

and to bring the legal order of society into something like harmony with the natural order.”7

During the period from 1832-1870, a series of reforms made Britain the very model of nineteenth

century liberalism. Some of those reforms were the work of the liberal party; others of the

conservative party. The Corporation Act of 1835 established local government on an elective

basis. The Factories Laws of 1842 and 1847 regulated the conditions of labor in mines and

factories. The great economic freedom of the period was the establishment of free trade by the

repeal, in 1846, of the Corn Laws. In the field of colonial reform British liberalism took a great

step of progress. Democratic Liberalism:

As after 1832 a number of liberal reforms followed, but this

time in the interest of the workers the British liberalism entered the democratic stage. Democracy

inspired a new attitude towards the state. Unlike classical liberalism, which regarded the state as

a necessary evil, democratic liberalism regarded it as a necessary good. Therefore the power of

the state was to be used to promote reforms in the economic order by removing the fear of

undeserved misfortune, the lot of many because of unemployment, sickness, low wages, and old

age. That spelled the doctrine of Laissez Faire. Democratic liberalism manifested itself

vigorously in Britain during the first decade of the twentieth century. On the other hand, the

liberal party underwent a great transformation when it renounced laissez faire, and advocated

social legislation. On the other hand, a new political party appeared, the British Labor party,

committed to an even more radical program of social reform and to socialism as its ultimate goal.

Both the parties repudiated the anti-thesis, stressed by classical liberalism, between the

individual and the state and between the individual and the society. They sought to create a new

order in which both state and society, by giving the individual more security, would also give

him more freedom. After the First World War, additional

legislation increased the pace of the forward march of democratic liberalism in Britain. The

suffrage was widely extended by the Reform Bill of 1918, establishing universal, equal suffrage

for men and women. A great step was taken to liberalize the empire when, in 1931, the statute of

Westminster made Britain and its Dominions “equal in status, in no way subordinate to one

another” in any aspect of their domestic and foreign affairs. As champions of democratic

liberalism the labor party irreconcilably opposed to dictatorship, either by an individual, or by a

group, or by a class. The latest stage of liberalism, the

7 British Parliamentary Speeches, February 28, 1832, Miscellanies, I, 94

welfare state, was definitely established by the British after the Second World War. As a result of

elections of 1945, the Labor Party came into power and remained in power until 1951, headed by

Clement Attlee, put through social legislation far more radical than that of the past. It aimed to

guarantee the minimum level of subsistence for all, “from the cradle to the grave.” As usual in

Britain when a liberal advance was made at home, a like advance was made in the empire.

Southern Ireland and Burma were granted independence. India, Pakistan, and Ceylon were

granted Dominion status at these periods. Ghana became the first Negro colony to attain virtual

independence as a Dominion. The admission of non-Europeans on the basis of equality with

whites marked a notable liberalization of the Commonwealth.

Liberalism in America: From Jeffersonian Democracy to the New Deal:

America was born a liberal nation. It came into existence during the high noon if

the enlightenment when the libertarian ideas of the period found easy lodgment in the fresh soil

of the New World. All founders of America were liberals; like Jefferson, Paine, Hamilton and

John Adams. All accepted the declaration of independence and the system of the Government

established by the Constitution. The United States was created by a method, novel at the time, of

a constitutional convention. This body adopted a written constitution establishing a new system

of government for the newly-born nation; and the system was the outcome of the debates,

discussions, and compromise by the delegates of the Philadelphia convention. The creation of a

united nation through voluntary action, not through conquest, constituted a liberal innovation.

Another liberal innovation was the comprehensive Bill of Rights built into the constitution itself.

Most of the state constitutions already had Bills of Rights, but fear was expressed that the central

government might prove tyrannical. It became evident that the constitution would not be ratified

by the states unless such a Bill was attached to it. The first ten Amendments, adopted in 1791,

became the American Bill of Rights.

From its very beginning the united states presented the unique opportunity of

establishing in the new world a liberal society, one based on individual initiative and free from

the privileges of an aristocracy, from the power of a military caste, and from the official creed of

a national church. According to Louis Hartz, “The United Stated emerged a nation built in the

liberal image and yet without the feudalism that liberalism destroyed.” Because the constitution

had established America as a liberal state no struggle took place, as in Europe, between liberals

and reactionaries. What might b described as bourgeois liberalism was advocated by the

Federalist Party, the great spokesman of which was Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804). According

to the federalists, government should be in the hands of the propertied, educated elements, “the

better kind of people.” The federalists, in power until 1800, put the country on a firm basis.

Congress adopted Hamilton’s recommendations: to secure the credit of the new nation by its

assumption of all the war debts; to create financial stability by establishing a national bank and a

monetary system; and to encourage domestic industry by a protective tariff.

Jeffersonian Democracy:

Opposed to the federalists were the Republicans, later known as

the Democrats. The founder and great spokesman of the Democratic Party was Thomas Jefferson

(1743-1826), who was elected President in 1800. Democratic liberalism in America has its

primal source in the ideas of this philosopher-states-man. Jeffersonian democracy comprehended

free, public, secular education; laissez faire on the theory that the best government was the one

that governed least; manhood suffrage, to be realized not by abolishing property qualifications

but by giving full opportunity to acquire it and thus to qualify ; separation of church and state;

and especially freedom of speech and of the press. The Jeffersonian principle of equal rights to

all and special privileges to none became the rallying cry of America. During the contest of

opinion through which we have passed, the animation of discussions and of exertions has

sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak

and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced

according to the rules of the constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of

the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good8.

Democratic Liberalism:

The next great advance of American Liberalism took place during

the Jackson a period. The industrial revolution in the north and the settlement of the west

resulted in the creation of a social order uniquely American. Property can be acquired by anyone

through free enterprise in business or through the acquisition of free land in the west. Capitalism,

a bourgeois institution in Europe, became a popular one in America where individualism, self-

reliance, initiative, and ambition had a free field. Largely for this reason, laissez faire, a

bourgeois policy in Europe, became in America a popular idea. The immense resources of the

8 T.C. Pease and A.S. Robert, Selected Readings in American History 232(New York, 1928).

country, waiting to be exploited, and the large, free market created by the union offered endless,

opportunities for business enterprise. Many rose from the ranks to become property owners. As a

result of the loose, ill-defined class structure, liberalism in America advanced to the democratic

stage earlier than in Europe. Manhood suffrage was virtually established in the north and west

during the 1830’s. Government by the people now meant that the voice of the common man was

heard in the land.

Another aspect of democratic liberalism, popular education, made rapid

headway. By the middle of the nineteenth century, free, public, elementary schools were

universal in the north and the west. Steps were also taken to establish free higher education

through state universities and city colleges. The Morrill Act of 1862 recognized the principle of

higher as a public responsibility, and granted lands to the states to be used as an endowment for

the support of education to advance industry and agriculture. Many of the state universities and

land-grant colleges sprang from this Act. Something unique in the history of education was

created in America: an open corridor from the lowest to the highest grades, free, public, and

secular. Progressivism:

As the new liberalism gathered force it became known as the

progressive movement. It influenced both political parties and inspired the organization of the

new, and more radical, parties. Corrupt politics and big business became the special object of its

hostility. In the tradition of American liberty, Progressivism demanded the participation of the

individual in matters political by the elimination of bossism; and in matters economics by

demanding the dissolution., or at least the curbing, of the trusts. It was influential in the

enactment of such measures as the Pure Foods and Drugs Act, 1906, forbidding adulteration of

foods and drugs; and laws favoring the conservation of forest lands. A decision of the Supreme

Court in northern securities case (1904) struck at monopoly by forbidding the consolidations of

several large railroads. Progressivism was marching on; it scored a great triumph in the

presidential election of 1912. The democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson was elected on an

advanced platform that became known as the ‘New Freedom.’ Equally significant was the

appearance during the campaign of the progressive party, whose candidate, the ex-republican

Theodore Roosevelt, received a larger vote that did the Republican candidate, William H. Taft.

The socialist candidate, Eugene V debs, rolled up a surprising vote, about nine lakh. The

outcome of the election was a great triumph for those parties that favored the progressivism.

During the presidency of Woodrow Wilson the progressive era of American politics definitely

emerged. Three amendments to the constitution became part of the new liberal patter- The

sixteenth(1913), empowering the congress to pass an income tax, the seventeenth(1913),

establishing popular election of senators, and the nineteenth(1920).

Social Liberalism:

During the period between the second world wars liberalism in America, as I

Europe, became markedly social in outlook. Its efforts were directed toward increasing the

regulatory power of government over economic life. Popular discontent resulted in the triumph

of the Democratic Party in 1932, when its candidate, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected

president. His election was as notable in the history of American liberalism as that of Jefferson in

1800, of Jackson in 1828, and of Lincoln in 1860. His administration marked the beginning of

decisive advance of American liberalism to the social stage that was to culminate in the welfare

state. In a notable message president Roosevelt formulated what he called an ‘economic bill of

rights’ guaranteeing the rights of the worker to a satisfactory; the right of the farmer to fair prices

for his products; the right of every citizen to medical care; and right of everyone to protection

against the economic hazards of life9. During 1933-38 a series of radical reforms repudiated

laissez faire, and gave a distinctively social orientation to American liberalism. These reforms

became known as the New Deal, the American version of the Welfare State, the essential

character of which was government regulation economic life with object of allocating the

national income so as to provide a minimum of wellbeing for everyone able and willing to work.

The new liberalism of social rights brought a new emphasis on the

old liberalism of individual rights. It focused attention on that element of the population that had

benefited least from America’s progress, the Negro. After the two world wars America

determined to come to grips with Negro problem. During the decade 1945-55, the status of

Negro underwent an immense improvement. Segregation was abolished in the armed forces.

Some of the states passed laws forbidding discrimination in employment because of race, creed

or national origin. By far the most important step in the movement to restore America’s

‘dilemma’ was the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court10, delivered on may 17, 1954. It

9 F.D. Roosevelt, Nothing to Fear 396(Boston, 1946).10 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483.

declared unconstitutional all laws establishing segregation in the public schools on the ground

that such measures deprived Negroes: “of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the

fourteenth amendment.” This famous decision was greeted throughout the world as a great

vindication of the liberal principle of equality.

Liberalism has been on the march in America since the day of the

Declaration of Independence. Until the twentieth century, however, its accomplishments were

largely confined to America itself. But the two world wars profoundly changed this situation.

History thrust America forward as the most powerful and most determined champion of the

democratic way of life, first against militarism of imperial Germany, and then against

totalitarianism dictatorship of fascism. Since then the hopes of liberals everywhere rest on

America as the leader of the free world in its ceaseless struggle against the totalitarian

dictatorship of communism.

Liberalism in India:

It is against this background of European intellectual development that Indian liberalism

has to be viewed. It was a product of the Western impact on the Indian mind and contributed to

India's constitutional and political development. So profound, indeed, has been this influence that

the history of Indian nationalism and constitutional development, more or less coincides with

that of liberalism until World War I. The Gandhi period of Indian politics which followed cast a

veil over the real achievements of the outstanding liberal leaders of the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries and it is but appropriate that we now seek to lift it11. The four major aspects of the

outlook of the Indian Liberals by S.P.Aiyer are as follows:

Firstly, they perceived the "total" character of the modernization process and the

inter-dependence of economic development and political stability. They saw how closely related

were the processes of social and political development and stressed the need to maintain

continuity in the cultural traditions of the people. Consider, for instance, Roy's interest in India's

religious history, Ranade's theism and his exposition of the relevance of the teachings of the

saints of Maharashtra, Sastri's interest in the Ramayana and Rajagopalachari's love of the Kural.

Liberalism has sometimes been described as conservatism-so it is, in the best sense of the word

for it seeks to conserve everything that is good in the past.

11 S.P.Aiyar, The Concept of Liberalism and its Relevance for India (Democratic Research Service, Bombay, 1985).

Secondly, Indian liberals have always entertained a certain apprehension of

unenlightened revolt of the masses and sensed the dangers of mass movements. Liberals, at all

times, have cautioned against rousing the people through an exploitation of their emotions:

Shivaji and Ganpati festivals at the time of Tilak, non-cooperation movements under Gandhi and

the populist gimmicks of politicians which have become endemic in Indian public life today. The

liberal apprehensions of the orgies into which uncontrolled movements often degenerate have

now been amply supported by studies in crowd psychology. Sir P. S. Sivaswamy Aiyar pointed

out that one of the great difficulties in non-cooperation and non-violence movements is to

maintain their essential non-violent character and this line of thinking can be found also in the

speeches and writings of Gokhale and of Srinivasa Sastri.

Thirdly, they saw the danger of helpless dependence on foreign assistance. They

welcomed the import of Western skills and knowledge but they warned against unimaginative

dependence on foreign aid and foreign experts. What is important is to develop the initiative of

the people and promote the skills necessary for development. Consider Gokhale's warning in this

direction, echoed after many decades, by Rajagopalachari in the pages of Swarajya and

Sivaswamy Aiyar's plea for technical and professional education.

Finally, all the liberals have shared a common concern for the expansion of education and

opening up opportunities for woman-without watering down standards. Theirs point was no

sentimental flirtation with the Goddess of Learning. They examined the educational needs of the

country; they saw the weakness of a purely "Arts" education compelling people to take

government jobs and making them more dependent than ever on the foreign government. This is

one of the reasons why Sivaswamy Aiyar had emphasized the importance of education in

commerce and mechanical engineering. More than any other liberal, with the exception of

Gokhale, it was from regulated private enterprise to State-red economics; it includes utopianism

of many varied Gandhi, Vinoba, Jayaprakash Narain et al.-a romantic sentimentalism12.

The near "one party system" which has long dominated the Indian political scene has

given rise to a host of social problems and heightened intolerance of criticism. The threats to

individual freedom are ever present making it necessary for freedom loving individuals to

organise for civil liberties and constantly explore new channels for the expression of critical

thought. In the long perspective of Indian history and tradition concern for the individual and his

12 S.P.Aiyer, Liberalism an the Modernization of India (Twelfth Annual Lecture, Harold Laski Institute, 1966).

rights has been conspicuous by its absence. India can progress on the lines indicated in the

Constitution only through a break with the dead past13.

Conclusion:

At the beginning of the twentieth century the outlook for liberalism appeared

bright. Because of these notable advances it was generally assumed that liberalism was destined

to encompass the entire world. Then came the two world wars, both within one generation, 1914-

1945. So great was the destruction of life and property, and so fearful the methods of warfare

that many feared that the progress of mankind had come to an end. Liberalism has contributed

much to the solution of the problem of power as exercised by the state. It has taken to heart lord

Acton’s famous dictum, “All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

No absolute power is given to anyone in the liberal review. Neither is power exercised without

responsibility to the people, who freely grant or withhold power to govern at periodic elections.

Absolute rule was given a death blow by liberalism when it made opposition to the government a

legitimate, even a necessary function. Opposition is expressed not only by minority political

parties but also by numerous and varied organizations that aim to change the policies of the

government by constitutional methods. This contribution of liberalism to the art of government

has brought stability with progress, has promoted national unity, and has assured the continuity

of the constitutional state.

Liberalism devised a rational method for settling differences between opposing

interests. The liberal spirit has, in modern times, found expression in all of man’s interests. But

nowhere more so than in the field of government, now extended to include so many of man’s

activities. The liberal state may be considered as the masterpiece of political man, an institution

dedicated to preserving and enlarging human freedom in all ways. Never until now has the

destiny of mankind been weighed on a political scale. And that scale is the liberal state.

13 supra note 11.

Bibliography

List of Books:

J. Salywyn Schapiro, Liberalism: Its Meaning and History(D. Van Nostrand Company

Inc., New Jersey, 1958).

Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws(Translated by Nugent) 182(New York, 1900).

Thomas P Neill, The rise and Decline of Liberalism 3 (The Bruce Publishing Company,

USA, 1953).

G.W.Paton, A Text Book of Jurispuredence 255 (Oxford University Press, London,

1964).

T.C. Pease and A.S. Robert, Selected Readings in American History 232(New York,

1928).

F.D. Roosevelt, Nothing to Fear 396(Boston, 1946).

S.P.Aiyar, The Concept of Liberalism and its Relevance for India (Democratic Research

Service, Bombay, 1985).

S.P.Aiyer, Liberalism an the Modernization of India (Twelfth Annual Lecture, Harold

Laski Institute, 1966).

British Parliamentary Speeches, February 28, 1832, Miscellanies, I, 94