The Eastern Economist June 1 1951

In the ordinary course one shotild have expected the Committee to show how the general revival of all the restrictions on the freedom of expression in force before Republic Day would affect that freedom in the new context and the matters on which further reform would be needed to rconcile the demands of authority with the principles of liberty. [...] In the face of the majority in the Committee selected for the approval of the official proposals the passion of the four dissenters for a thorough examination proved futile. [...] The answer to the dangers of the amendments pointed out was that it was not the desire of the Executive to curtail the liberty of the nress or expropriate the Zamindars or introduce communal discrimination and that this expression of pious intention should suffice to satisfy doubts even if the letter or spirit of the law indicated otherwise. [...] or the end of March 1953 as the case may be; and its joint reponsibility together with the Ministry of Law for the waste of time and money over the banking dispute (not to speak of the indirect consequences of this award on the growth of banking) must lead to very grave doubts as to the Ministry's ability to administer the penal sections of the proposed Labour Relations Bill. [...] The practical inability of the Minimum Wages Act and the Employees State Insurance Act to register progress after the legislative stage thus far dmonstrates the unrealism in labour policy and undelines the expediency of adjusting the level of legilation to the level of the growth of the economy Attempts such as these to impose disproportionate burdens on industry cannot but force margina