|
The British Culture (Part II)
by Anwar Shaikh |
Since Americans or that
time were direct descendants of the British settlers, they knew no other way of
life except the British, that is, love of liberty and respect for human rignts.
This is the reason that, when the American Revolution came, the Declaration af
Independence (1776) stated - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness - That to secure These rights governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their powers from the consent of the governed - That whenever any Form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ..."
This last sentence is an echo of the principle
enshrined in Magna Carta which gives people the legal right of revolt against
the state until their lawful rights are reinstated. One ought to realise that
one of the reasons of the American uprising was the same as that of Magna Carta
- that is, imposition of taxes without the consent of the people. Yet another
cause was the violation of a sacred clause of Magna Carta which required *trial
by a jury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Magna Carta does not state "trial by jury."
Amercement of offences concerning lay people, by honest men of the neighbourhood
(clause 20) and amercement of earls ard barons by their peers (clause 21). Thus,
the low and the high were subject to the authority of law by amercement (fine or
punishment) which was to be assesed collectively i.e. by a jury of the peers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, Constitution of the United States (1787) is
a brilliant document in its own right. Yet it records the echoes of Magna Carta
heard many centuries earlier. Magna Carta deprived king of the authority to tax
his subjects directly, and so does the American Constitution; the President
cannot levy taxes of his own volition. This is a typical doctrine of English
taxation. As Magna Carta was all about people's liberties through a neutral and
swift system of justice, the American Constitution declares its purpose:
"... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Americans were never a British colony in the sense as
were the people of India, for being members of the same racial stock, who spoke
the same language, practised the same culture and possessed similar
temperaments. In fact, they were one people divided by geography and political
considerations. They were driven by circumstances to rebel against their
mother-country i.e. Britain. It was the perpetual animosity of France that drew
her into the American struggle for independence. This is the reason that the
French shipped 30,000 muskets to America in the year 1777. Nine-tenths of all
the gunpowder used by Americans before the battle of Saratoga also mainly came
from France. The French pursued their desire for revenge a bit too far, thus
digging the grave of their own monarchy. It happened for two reasons: firstly,
the financial drain on the French treasury was so ruinous that the government
had to resort to abject taxation making everybody shudder with its devastating
effects. Penury, poverty and paucity hounded the man in the street, who was not
provided with any solace, satisfaction or a shield against the pending doom,
destruction and debilitation. Instead, they were chased by the tax-gatherers
with special powers to squeeze the Parisians, already reaching the starvation
level. The French veterans in America knew that the Americans were fighting
against their own British cousins for liberty and had stated in The Declaration
of Independence (1776) "... that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights - that among these are
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, - that to secure their rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed. That whatever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and institute new Government ..."
This is where the French, who knew nothing about
democracy, learnt all ahout it in a fierce battlefield, which confirmed their
honour, heroism and highness of spirit tested by hindrance, hardships and havocs
in the east and west. If they could fight for the Americans, why could they not
wage a war against their own tyrant called Louis XVI who neither possessed the
education nor the temperament which a reasonably good monarch should have. He
was born with a sexual defect and was totally naive in this field. On his
wedding night, during the feast when the king reminded him that he was eating
and drinking too much, he failed to realise the sophistication of these remarks,
and came up with a ludicrous reply: "I always sleep better after a good
supper." His consortial queen, Marie Antoinette, whose paltry, proud and
perdicious head was guillotined on October 16, 1793, had turned her husband into
a cukold and ranked as a major cause for draining the treasury to meet her
gambling debts, finance her bounteous attitudes towards her friends and her
insatiable desire for precious stones and exquisite clothing.
The revolutionary conditions in both America and France
had a good deal of resemblance that prevailed at the time of Magna Carta. The
Americans inherited the spirit of Magna Carta from their English cousins and the
French received it as a reward for relieving the distress of the Americans
engaged in a desperate battle for liberty. This is what led to the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789),
On August 2 6, 1789, the representatives of the French
People assembled to give themselves the status of a National Assembly,
"considering ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man to
be the only causes of public misfortunes and the corruptions of Governments,
have resolved to set forth, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, unalienable
and sacred rights of man, ... to the end that the demands of the citizens,
founded henceforth on simple and uncontestable principles, may always be
directed toward the maintenance of the Constitution and the happiness of
all."
"In consequence whereof, the National Assembly
recognises and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme
Being, the following Rights of Man and of the Citizen. "
The first article says: "Men are born and remain
free and equal in rights."
The second article says: "The aim of every
political association is the preservation of the natural and unvoilable rights
of man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.
Here the right to resist oppression is an echo of Magna
Carta which gives people the legal right to rebel against an oppressive
government.
The French Declaration though inspired by the spirit of
Magna Carta is not its copy-cat. It also incorporates the philosophy of the
French thinkers such as Rousseau. For example, the Law is the expression of the
general will. All citizens have the right to take part, personally or through
their representatives, in its making. All citizens are equally eligible to all
high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability .....
Article seven prescribes that no man may be accused,
arrested or detained without following the procedures laid down by the law.
Article nine is simply wonderful: every man is presumed
innocent until he is proved guilty.
Article ten is even more wonderful; it bestovvs upon
citizens the freedom of speech and expression of opinion within the limits of
law.
Article sixteen advocates separation of powers for
guaranteeing rights to such an extent that it considers a constitution as
non-existent unti it does separate powers.
A lot has been said about the beneficial effects of the
French Revolution on the spread of democracy. Over-zealous minds have always
drummed up fancies which appear more reliable than facts. This is a similar
opinion The greatness, grandeur and gusto of revolution, the French did advocate
but only for themselves because they held that only the French were big enough
to deserve the blessings of a revolution. History has observed the fact that
Napoleon had destroyed the central element of the French Revolution which
thought of different peoples as the family of man and thus advocated equality of
human rights irrespective of creed and colour. Golden though this theory was on
the lips that enunciated it, it did not unfold its charm in the hands of those
who were supposed to have enforced it. It is because Napoleon, despite being an
enlightened person, a brilliant administrator and a conqueror, was a despot at
heart. He was desperate for perpetuating his dynastic rule and to beget a son,
which Josephine, his wife could not produce, resorted to incest with his own
step-daughter with the full consent of her mother (Josephine). The relationship
between the French and the conquered territories was that of masters and slaves,
and not that of equals. The French had never enjoyed democratic institutions.
The honour of introducing parliamentary democracy in France goes to Britain
which had opposed the French Revolution tooth and nail. After all, democracy is
an evolutionary process and not a revolutionary zeal.
A mention ought to be made of the fact that after
Restoration in France, it was the British Parliamentary system that was
introduced there. The country had three governing tiers namely, the king, the
peers, and the deputies. It was the king who initiated, sanctioned and enforced
laws, called the chambers every year and could dissolve the elected chamber. The
peers were nominated by the king on a hereditary basis, and the deputies of the
departments were chosen by electors. This body known as the Pays Legal of France
observed the English Parliamentary customs such as an annual vote on the budget,
voting of a civil list by the Chamber to the monarch, a speech from the throne
at the opening of the parliamentary session, and an address from the Chamber in
reply to that speech. The method of debating was also typically English which
required freedom and ease of discussion. This was certainly an education in
democracy which the French had yearned for but never acquired. They were still
in a process of civil turmoil which was to go on for another half a century
after the demise of Napoleon.
Influence of the British culture has assumed global
proportion over the last fifty years for its emphasis on individuality and
advocacy of human rights. This process has been considerably accelerated by the
Americans who inherited the British way of life directly. One can see this fact
incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
The preamble to the Declaration recognises the inherent
dignity, the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.
It acknowledges that disregard and contempt for human
rights have led to diasterous consequences and seeks to establish a world order
in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief. Further, it
seeks to remove disparity of rights between man and woman. On this account, it
is nearer to the French ideal than the British thinking.
Lastly the preamble emphasises that Member States of
the United Nations have pledged themselves to achieve the promotion of universal
respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Of course, British Parliamentary system is not the same
in form as it was, but in spirit it has not deteriorated but attained further
elevation. Originally, it meant securing people's liberties through control of
the public purpose. Stated differently, it meant that people paid taxes for good
government and therefore, they were entitled to a redress of their grievances;
if the government did not behave responsibly, the people had the right to
withdraw their financial support and even rebel legally to secure their human
rights. This is the essence of Magna Carta whose spirit concerns democratic
liberties more than ever before.
This article is based on the assumption that a culture
is beneficial when it is dedicated to promoting the cause of free will i.e.
man's innate desire for free choice. Of course, no culture is perfect because it
represents both sides of the human character but when it represents free will,
the desire for personal freedom which requires recognition of human rights, it
reflects the best element of humanity, thus suppressing the evil tendencies that
may be there.
When a person has the freedom to choose, he opts for
the best according to his own volition. Since man is born with a potential, and
the greatness of his personality depends upon its development, he is naturally
inclined towards higher ideal through learning and experimentation. History
testifies to the fact that whatever knowledge and technical progress there is,
it emanates from man's desire for self-improvement, which is both individual and
collective in character. Only the thinking and innovative nations have
contributed to civilisation, and their success and glory owe themselves to the
urge of self-improvement. In antiquity, this honour goes to India, China,
Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece but in modern times, it is England that has led
the way. Therefore, I may add a few words about the Industrial Revolution which
has completely changed the human way of life in every corner of the globe. So
great is this change that reason, the foundation of humanity, is replacing
superstition, and donkey-ride has been replaced by space-travel. It is a result
of technical progress, springing from the Industrial Revolution, that now the
same earth can support over five billion people whereas before, it could hardly
provide sustenance to fifty million souls. Not only that, it has made the life
of a mendicant far more luxurious than the life of a mighty monarch of
antiquity, who knew nothing about the blessings of electricity, radio,
telephone, television, motor-car, aeroplane and so on.
It may not go down well with the critics, but as I see
it, the Industrial Revolution, which is considered a change from the agrarian
economy to the one motivated by industry and machine manufacture, started in
England with Drake's adventure of circumnavigation on November 15, 1557. Its
patron was the Queen, Elizabeth, who was interested in the character-building of
her nation; she wanted her people to learn the virtues of hard-work,
risk-bearing and grappling with the impossible. It is for this reason that the
Queen herself was a shareholder in the adventure along with her courtiers such
as the Earl of Leicester, Sir Francis Walsingham, Sir Christopher Hatton and
many more. It was possibly, to the glory of England, the first occasion in
history that a queen was a shareholder in a commercial enterprise with her
subjects. So successful was this business venture that it produced a return of
4700 per cent on the initial capital. The Queen's own share came to about £300,000.
Some people call it an act of piracy. We will have to
judge events of that time by the standards of judgement which prevailed during
that age. It was a business venture because it was constituted as such. It had
shareholders entitled to receive dividends; they also might lose the lot. If we
were to accept the type of unfair criticism levelled against this adventure, all
conquerors, rulers including popes and some saints and prophets fall within this
category. This Elizabethan venture is the cornerstone of the Trading England. As
J. K. Keynes, the economist, noted that was what constituted the "Origins
of the British Foreign Investment" because Elizabeth invested a large part
of these profits in the new Levant Company which traded with the Eastern
Mediterranean countries, and profits of this company were, in turn, responsible
for financing the East India Company which founded the greatness of England
through her commercial ventures.
How does this venture constitute the fountain of the
Industrial Revolution? It is because commerce and industry go together, and are
mutually dependent on each other. This fact is quite evident from the social
conflict which was rife in the days of Elizabeth, and sprang from the feudal
economic system and religious rivalry. The feudal landlords loved the agrarian
economy tied with their land which gave them wealth and power. It is they who
formed the right hand of monarch and ranked as courtiers with all the razzmatazz
that is its characteristic. They loved absolutism; however, there had grown up a
class of gentry which owned minor estates but did not form a part of nobility.
It is they who formed the core of the House of Commons. If they could not be
elected, they were quite happy to buy votes. They longed for a parliamentary
system of government which sought submission of the monarch, the earls and the
lords to the will of the people. Stated differently, it was people's desire for
liberty which sought self-elevation. The famous words that Paul Wentworth
uttered in the Parliament of 1576, represent the spirit of the age: "Sweet
indeed is the name of liberty and the thing itself a value beyond all
inestimable treasure."
Once the problems of the belly are reduced or resolved,
the mind is unfettered in search of higher attainments. In England, it happened
because the wealth of the bourgeois, bankers, merchants, manufacturers and
businessmen had expanded, and they wanted a social status commensurate with
their prosperity. This affluence was brought about by a favourable change in the
English economy during the 16th century which should be considered the time for
the inception of the Industrial Revolution and not the 1760's. Many undertakings
had sprung up in England requiring huge capitalistic investments; there were
alum factories in Yorkshire; paper-manufacturing was carried on at Dartford,
Cannon-making was a speciality of Brendeley, and mining was at an advanced stage
for the increasing demand of coal, iron, copper, tin and lead. By the standards
of the 16th century, England enjoyed the pioneering role in industrialisation.
Textile organisations supplied material to shops which employed 1000 or more
workers. Even agriculture benefited from the capitalistic attitudes of that
time. The wealthy people brought large tracts of land and turned them into
enclosures to provide meat and wool to their customers. The relationship between
commerce and industry becomes evident when we realise that England's foreign
commerce multiplied tenfold between 1610 and 1640.
In fact, the Industrial Revolution was a bit too
advanced even for England itself. The increased mechanical productivity was
becoming a threat to employment. In 1634. Charles ordered the owners of a
mechanical sawmill to demolish it because it had deprived several sawyers of
their livelihood. This was the time when religious bigotry in England was also
reaching its peak, persuading the English families to emigrate to America; they
sowed the seeds of their culture which flourished so abundantly that one day
they would excel their own origin in beneficence and glory.
When these facts are borne in mind, it transpires that
Britain was at least 200 years ahead of any nation in Industrial Revolution.
What happened in 1760's is the second flourish of this event marked by advanced
inventiveness as evidenced by the spinning machine, the flying shuttle, the
mechanical loom, the printing drum, the coke furnace, puddling and steam engine.
This represents the mechanisation of life which is certainly a new culture.
Since, it is practised in every part of the globe in its advanced form, one can
say confidently that Britain has the honour to be the fountain of the modern
universal culture barring local variations.
Historians have often wondered why all the industrial
geniuses were born in Britain during the 18th eentury. If I were a
superstition-monger, I would say that God had chosen the British to act as His
agent for spreading a new way of life. I am inclined to leave the advocacy of
such a fairy tale to someone else. The truth is that the English learnt a good
deal from the persistent peraecution of the Vikings and made up their mind to be
free and competitive. Magna Carta is the manifestation of the English zeal of
liberty which fired the English desire to be rich because the rich is powerful,
preferred and paramount whereas poor is paltry, persecuted and paralysed. It is
the Englishman's psyche which was at the root of the Industrial Revolution and
not the hand of God.
The British liberitarian zeal is expressed by the
economic management of the time. It is called Laissez-Faire, which means an
entrepreneur was free in planning and running his enterprise. He was expected to
reap what he sowed whereas in France, the guilds survived and their members
resisted new developments and the introduction of new techniques. As the
Colbertist regulations show, the French industry was dictated by the government
to maintain detailed standards of workmanship, yet the British goods were far
superior to what the French could produce. Of course, all the innovations that
we see today, did not originate in Britain. What originated here was the spirit
to invent. All the modern states of the West, such as the United States, France
and Germany, learnt the basic industrial lore from Britain. By the late 19th
century, these countries had completed their process of industrialisation, and
had become the source of further growth by way of electrical power, the
internal-combustion engine, petroleum fuel, the automobi!e, and so on. During
the second half of the 20th century, this phenomenon rose still higher in the
form of atomic power, electronics and computers. The successful return journey
to the moon is a miracle of the modern culture.
There is nothing in the world which has not been
affected by the Industrial revolution including man's birth and burial. Though
this change has produced many billionaires, it has also eased the perpetually
burdened fate of the layman whose life has not been much better than that of a
slave even when he has been a free man. I am inclined to give a short sketch of
this vicissitude to explain this point:
Originally, the western nations in the eastern
countries operated as traders but, as they noticed the decadence of the Asian
races, brought about by centuries of affluence, they felt the plunderous zeal to
occupy the lands of the indigenous peoples for subjecting them to economic
exploitation. First, they airned at spices, sugar, precious stones and metals.
In the African countries, slaves provided a special attraction as free labour,
but when the Industrial Revolution started, the demand for slave labour, which
was the least productive, dwindled. The productivity of machines was the major
cause of reducing significance of slavery. Therefore, the emphasis shifted from
the passion of ruling to trading. As a result, the western powers became more
interested in markets for selling their mass-produced goods than having colonies
for prestige, power and plunder. The passion for trading also benefited the
colonies because their foreign masters had to buy the raw materials such as
cotton, wool. jute, vegetable oils, dyes, etc., for their own industries. Of
course, they wanted to pay minimum prices for the local produce, yet they
guaranteed purchase of the goods, they needed, thus encouraging the colonials lo
adapt to the changing circumstances. This adaptation equally applied to the
foreign masters who tried to do justice to their subjects for their dependence
on colonial raw materials. There was a by product of this process. With a view
to maximising their profits, the colonists set up factories in their ands of
possession, which naturally provoked the tendencies of the ruled to be like
their masters by setting up their own factories, and eventually to take over the
foreign enterprises through political movements of freedom. India is an example
in point. She was the tenth industrialised country in the world when the British
left during 1947.
Industrial Revolution is not just a matter of
engineering; it also concerns scientific thinking and planning. All these fields
have felt the benefit of this culture but the worker whose labour and skills
have been exploited by the employer since antiquity, has received the greatest
benefit. He ceased to be just a factor of production; he was also acknowledged
as a human with some unvoilable rights. This fact is obvious from what is called
Labour Law which applies to such matters as employment, wages, conditions of
work, trade unions and labour-management relations including job-security, right
of consultation, sick-pay, holidays, and so on. Labour Law deals with the
statutory requirements and contractual relationships that have become an
integral part of mass production. We are told that such laws existed as far back
as the reign of Hammurabi but they were less than minimal and hardly carried any
clout. The modern labour laws are forceful, fruitful and, occasionally,
ferocious to protect employment and safety of workers. The honour ot leading in
this field goes to Britain where the first Labour Law was enacted as the British
Health and Morals of Apprentices Act, 1802, sponsored by the elder Sir Robert
Peel. This is what gave lead to other industrialised countries; Zurich passed
legislation in 1815 to protect the young, and France in 1841. Landsgemeinde i.e.
the Citizen's Assembly of the Swiss canton of Glarus adopted the first legal
limitation of the working hours concerning adults; Germany pioneered the
Sickness Insurance and Workmen's Compensation in 1883 and 1884, and New Zealand
introduced compulsory arbitration in industrial dsputes during the 1890s.
In the beginning, the industrialist was the master; his
unrestricted power to hire and fire made him absolute, giving him the divine
right to exploit his workers, who became more and more powerless and eventually
emerged as a propertyless class known as proletariats. They longed for their
rights. Their plight gave birth, not only to a new social philosophy, but they
also merged into unions which eventually formed political parties challenging
the established aristocracies' right to rule. Thus, the workers, who had known
submission as the only way of life, rose from the status of subjects to
suzerains. This all happened through Britain which had pioneered Parliamentary
Democracy and the Industrial Revolution: the former entitled any party to rule
if it could muster a majority, and the latter goaded workers to form political
parties for this purpose. The Labour Party of Great Britain is a good example of
this fact.
Until the end of the 18th century, a working man had to
depend upon the mercy of God for what he wanted; it did appear from time to time
but, as a charity of the rich or powerful. The more he begged the good Lord, the
happier the members of the upper classes were because they could perpetuate
their tyrannical attitudes as the Will of God. however, the philosophical views
started changing workers' attitude as the 18th century neared its end.
Saint-Simon, a French social philosopher, thought that the Industrial Revolution
must be used as the medium to ameliorate the plight of the masses. He wanted to
effect this change through a governrnent of bankers and administrators. He also
synthesised a new religion from the existing fragments to suit the scientific
phase cf history with a special cult of Newton and other scientists.
His disciple, Auguste Comte, took his master's
philosophy even further. He was anxious to deploy the power of modern technology
for the benefit of all mankind. However, the real fillip to the proletarian
cause was given by Karl Marx who had inherited the Hegelian claim to understand
the "totality" of history and life as it passed through the
dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Marx insisted that the
dynamism of history was generated by the inevitable class conflict determined by
economic factors. He assured proletariats that they would eventually win victory
putting an end to class society forever. It is he who envisaged government by
the workers who should own all the means of production and deny all rights to
individuality. To make sure that the proletariates waged a class struggle with
full zeal, he declared "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their
chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite."
Though I have no particular regard for Ihis philosophy,
I certainly applaud the consciousness of workers' rights and feeling of social
considerations which it has engendered. Though the extreme form of its
philosophy known as Communism or Marxism is fading fast owing to its ill-
conceived doctrines, its socialist leanings by way of comradeship, compassion
and brotherhood of man, deserve to survive.
The two factors of the British culture - namely,
Parliamentary Democracy and Industrial Revolution have exerted a greater
influence on the human culture than anything secular or divine, yet this fact is
not always borne in mind and the bencficence of the British culture is ignored
on the ground that the British were an imperial power who exploited the world. I
am no admirer of imperialism; it is an evil even in its best form, yet
comparatively the British imperialism was beneficial to the colonials, on the
whole, thought the British themselves did well out of it. An example of this
fact is provided by the Indian sub-continent, once a British colony:
India was politically divided into two parts - the
British India, directly administered by the British, and Princely India, though
under the British hegemony, was ruled by the subjugated Indian princes. These
two parts were nearly equal in size thought the Princely India consisted of
several hundred large and small states. The British India was far ahead of the
Princely India culturally, educationally and industrially; all college,
universities and modern technical, social, economc and political institutions
were to be found in the British India which also had an advanced system of
railways, roads, canals and abounded in hospitals, factories and commercial
centres. Above all, the British India had the free press, and possibly equal
freedom to hold political meetings and processions as in Britain itself. On the
contrary, the Princely India was comparatively primitive: no free press, hardly
any freedom of speech, few schools, colleges or universities; no justice, no
political parties, no industrial progress.
Again, the British departure from India was saintly, to
say the least. It had a population of 400,000,000 during 1947. Not one person
was killed for demanding liberty whereas the Portuguese in Goa, the Dutch in
Indonesia, the French in Vietnam and the Belgians in the Congo carried out
massacres of their subjects for demanding self-rule.
Having described Parliamentary Democracy and Industrial
Revolution, now I may describe the third ingredient of the British culture: it
is known as the English or Common Law:
Law has been defined differently by various people but
to a lay person like myself, law is a set of basic principles which preserves
the entity of a thing and regulates its conduct. This is the law, commonly known
as a formula, that water must consist of two parts of hydrogen and one part of
oxygen. Thus the entity of water lasts as long as these two elements persist in
the said ratio. The conduct of water such as changing into vapour or snow and
reassumption of liquid form, is also governed by the inherent properties of
water. This is what lies at the root of natural law. The Rg. Veda has made the
most extensive reference to the Natural or Eternal law, and its significance to
the universe. The Stoics of Greece were yet another philosophical sect which
praised the natural law and whose influence was felt by the Roman law, adopted
by many nations of Europe.
However, natural law does not apply to humans as it
does to inanimates because of the element of free will which distinguishes them
from the rest of the beings. Because of free will, it is man's nature to choose
and refuse, and therefore, law cannot be imposed upon him from without, to
regulate his conduct completely. Such an imposition destroys the very concept of
morality which expresses man's volitional conduct, and is the cause of his
prominence in the cosmic ladder of evolutionary elevation. Yet there is one
element of natural law which applies to man-made law; the natural law applies to
every thing with the same vehemence and without prevarication. Stated
differently, natural law is neutral in its application. It is this neutrality of
application which ranks as natural justice in regard to humans.
One of the major causes of human chagrin, is the lack
of natural justice i.e. the equal application of law without fear and favour.
The reason for this abuse is, that law has been used as the medium of command to
serve man's urge of dominance, which is his instinctive desire to look great by
ruling his fellow-beings through malignance or munificence, persecution or
persuasion, blight or blessing. Study of the prophets and messiahs who love to
be adored and idolised by striking down human nnind with the force of
superstition, and the massacre carried out by the conquerors to impose their
suzerainty, clearly shows that the urge of dominance is man's most exhorbitant
desire.
To achieve the goals of dominance-urge, man has been
denied his birth right to make law to suit his needs and circumstance. It has
been done cleverly by projecting God as the master of the universe and man as
His slave. Therefore, to qualify for a reward of eternity, man must obey God's
law, otherwise, he will perish. Out of this theory arose the concept of
prophethood. A prophet is the person who serves as the medium of promulgating
God's laws. Through this device in fact, he seeks obedience to his person in the
name of God, who is nothing but a factotum of the prophet. Since nobody can see
God or approach Him directly, the word of the prophet comes to rank as the law
of God. This happens to be the core of the ecclesiastical law based on Biblical
revelation. Islamic law is yet another example of this fact.
Fear is one of the major instincts of man. Law has
served as a weapon of rulers to exploit this human instinct for exacting
obedience from him. Frightening man in the name of God through a superstition of
hell is an even more effective way of ruling him. Clever people have used
various forms of divinity to achieve this end: pharaohs of Egypt projected
themselves as God-incarnate; Hammurabi of Mesopatamia claimed to receive his
laws from the god Shams, Moses acted as the representative of Yahwe, who gave
him the Biblical laws and Muhammad of Arabia projected himself as the prophet of
Allah who bestowed upon him the Quran, the source of Islamic laws.
What I have called ecclesiastical aw, as applicable to
Christianity, is known as Canon Law. It concerns that body of rules and
regulations which seek to regulate tne behaviour and actions of Individuals and
institutions such as churches within the Christendom. It is still live; and
forceful in both Catholic and Protestant churches. Though arbitrary in character
for being a continuation of the supposed revelation, it has served as the origin
of international law. Therefore, canonists and theologians have made a
contribution to the concept of law. Thus the old canonical idea of church as an
institution may be taken as a model for the modern notion of statehood.
However, the essence of the ecclesiastical or religious
law is, that it is God's command to man to do or not to do something. In fact,
it is the manifestation of man's dominance-urge seeking its realisation in the
name of God. Many a jurist ot even modern times has given it a twist to make law
as the tool of government. John Austin of England, a prominent English writer on
the philosophy of law adopted this attitude when he developed his command
theory. He hardly gave any weight to the social function of law and its judicial
role; he held it as a command of the ruler to the ruled.
Common Law, alternatively known as English Law, is
different from Divine and Civil Law. It is a body of customary law i.e.
originating from people's way of life, which over a period of time ranks as
rules of private conduct in relation to others, but only those customs are
considered reliable which the judicial decisions take into account and are
embodied in reports of decided cases. Since Common Law has been developed by
judges, the intellectual magnitude and integrity of a judge, plays an important
role in its formation.
Further, it is a check on the validity of the
legislative enactments and declares what they really mean, thus making tne law a
continuous whole. This renders Common Law an extension of the natural law
because judicial decisions or decided cases are based on reason and cogitation,
and not on the will to rule. The process of law is purified by the fact that
Common Law is hierarchical in character and one can appeal to a higher court
against the decision of an inferior court.
Common Law is the law developed by judges, but it is
not the exclusive law of the land. In an English legal system, there are yet
another two types of law, namely, equity and statute: the rules of equity have
also been developed by the courts whereas statute law is enacted by the
legislature i.e. parliament.
The Anglo-Saxons of Erigland did have their Teutonic
legal traditions but they started losing their effect with the Norman Conquest
of 1066. However, the Norman attitude did suppress the local customs. One of the
major changes of the Conquest was, that the wrong done to a person was no longer
considered an offence only against the victim, but also a crime against the
society. Trial by ordeal was gradually replaced by punishment which suited the
crime.
The Norman Conquest proved to be a blessing for England
because it welded together the various parts of the country under a single
political and administrative authority, which helped England to be a single
nation with all the benefits of early nationalism, giving it a considerable edge
over most of its European rivals. It also enabled England to have a single royal
court, the King's Court or Curia Regis. The judges of this court had the good
fortune of declaring the Common Law based on the country-wide customs. Of
course, customs can also be evil. The major task of the judges was to suppress
the evil customs so that the good ones must flourish.
What I have stated does give an idea of the origin of
Common Law and its development. Any further discuss on of the subject is beyond
the scope of this article. However, what is relevant is the spread of its
influence abroad. Mainly, three factors have contributed to it: firstly,
colonisation e.g. the English emigrants setlling in the United States, and
elsewhere: secondly, the British colonial rule which had nearly half the world
under its political sway directly or indirectly, and thirdly, the direct and
natural approach of the Common Law. It is based on people's customs and
traditions, which carry a democratic appeal, making it as the law of the people,
for the people.
The British culture is unusual in its magnitude for
having three major novel traits i. e., Parliamentary Democracy, Industrial
Revolution and Common Law. Even one of these characteristics would have been
sufficient to attract our admiration. A stunning aspect of the British culture
is people's right of self-determinism, which emanated from the British culture,
and has direct link with the traditions promoted by Magna Carta. It is a paradox
of history that the British were the greatest imperial power, yet it is they who
lit the candle of modern democracy, daring everybody seek self-determination. It
is a fact of history that it is only the British who parted with the least
resistance when they realised that their colonies wanted to govern themselves.
In this respect, the British history is unique though it is natural for an
empire of such a great size to have a smear or two.
The British way of life is an example of the
Libertarian Culture. When evaluating it, one must keep in mind further two
factors, in addition to what I have already said:
Firstly, the effect of the Industrial Revolution on the
emancipation of women. Of course, it was hurtful in the beginning, but by giving
them a role in national economies, it made them conscious of self-dignity and
human rights, leading to equality of sexual rights.
Secondly, the influence of Common Law on the major
legal codes of the world. Jews, the inventors of the Biblical law have accepted
the authority of Common Law, and the Moslem nations who believe in the divinity
of the Koranic law, also practise it but under the cloak of their own religion.
This fact is clearly visible in all those Islamic lands which were once a part
of the British Empire. The Americans inherited it from their British forefathers
and have been an active force in spreading the British cultural values for many
decades. Add to it the other English speaking nations and the ex- colonies, you
get an idea of the influence of the British culture.
Now, I may deal with the fourth element of the British
culture, which I omitted to mention in the beginning because of its recent
development. This fact, which I may call tolerance, gives British culture the
status of an organism, having the built-in ability to survive through a
mechanism of challenge and adaptation.
Before the Second World War, the British were the
greatest imperial nation ever known to history. I need not describe here the
psychological traits of dominance, disparagement and derision which aggrandise
the ego of masters by belittling slaves, and urge them to perpetuate subjugation
for the sheer hell of it. By the 1940s, the British, once a nation of
buccaneers, had developed a benevolent character which has parallel in imperial
history. Contrary to their imperial rivals, such as the French and the Dutch,
who committed untold atrocities for denying emancipation to their subjects, the
British acknowledged the human right of self-determination, and vacated the
occupied territories as nobly as possible.
India, which housed 400,000,000 people i.e. one-fifth
of the world population al that time, did not suffer even one casualty for
demanding liberty.
In fact, out of the ashes of British imperialism rose
the phoenix of humanity, which people had dreamt of but never seen before. It
was the birth of the multi-racial British Commonwealth. This was a new
phenomenon because the Commonwealth that Britain already had with Australia,
Canada and New Zealand was not only white but also of the British racial stock,
and Britain held a superior status in that organisation. It was also different
from the Roman concept of "res publica," which, according to Cicero,
was an association of nations held together by law. The British Commonwealth is
an entirely voluntary association and the member nations are free to practise
the type of law they choose. Frankly speaking, I may add that it is a tribute to
the British imperialism because the emancipated nations have preferred to
maintain their ties with Britain which has renounced the imperial character and
voluntarily assumed the role of the Mother Country. No wonder, people from all
ex- colonies have flocked into Britain, which has ceased to be all-white,
mono-cultural and mono-religious. The crux of the matter is that it has happened
quite voluntarily. This is a symbol of international brotherhood, and
considering the alien manners and habits of the immigrants, a glaring proof of
the British tolerance which makes this country unique, and a true specimen of
the Libertarian Culture. A person from other parts of the British commonwealth
can start any legitimate business here; he can own property, and rise to any
dignity that he is capable of. One can easily realise this fact by looking at
the ever-increasing number of Asians and Africans who have become Members of
Parliament, solicitors, barristers, magistrates, judges, accountants, doctors,
engineers and teachers. There is no dearth of foreign industrialists and
tycoons. Lower down the social scale, everyone is treated equally in matters of
welfare, education and medical treatment. Of course, despite this, the British
society is still not perfect, but one cannot blame the host community for its
ills. The immigrants have lived here long enough to share the blame. Enumerating
the causes of discord and suggesting remedies is beyond the scope of this
article.
As an appreciation of Britain for being the symbol of
Libertarian Culture, I have written a poem in the Urdu language (translated
here):
BRITANNIA, BRITANNIA
(1)
1. Britannid, Britannia, you are
the apex of human
excellence,
the cradle of humanity, and
the brilliant moon of hope.
2. Even if no one acknowledges
the truth, it cannot be
concealed:
That is, whether it be sea or
land, forests or deserts,
they all have been kindled
by your rays.
3. The globe was a tale of
desolation owing to long
distances,
But now it has become one
locality owing to the Industrial
Revolution.
4. Your conduct reveals the
height of human grandeur
that is, if one tries
courageously, the bloody eddy
itself turns into a boat.
5. Whether it be a place of
fire-worship, a gurdawara,
Benares or Kaaba,
Britannia, Britannia, they all
are indebted to your skills.
(2)
6. Britannia, Britannia, you are
really Great,
and it is your destiny to
remain young for ever.
7. Your culture is based on
humanity;
Whoever be on your soil, is
equally treated with kindness.
8. You are gracious to all,
whether they be Eastern or
Western.
9. Whichever way one looks, one
find, groups of various races:
You are really a high symbol
of humanity.
10. Britannia, Britannia, your
sacred land is like the tract
known as "High Heaven."
|
Previous
Essay
