Ascendancy of the language of violence in the streets will inevitably endanger political institutions of the free society that we have built up and so jealously preserved over the last two decades. Lest this whole problem is shrugged off as falling squarely within the realm of administration's responsibility, let me make it clear that violence met by counter-violence does not lead to peace. It only serves in alienating the administration from the people. What is required, therefore, is an administrative machinery more sensitive to its responsibilities in the complex and fast changing situation, and a national consensus on the methods and techniques of protest and dissent. Protest is an essential, indeed, a sacred element of a free society. But peace is no less vital if the poor millions of India have to have a reasonably hopeful future, in not too distant a time.

The second danger is more difficult to meet, because in this case violence is not a manifestation of a momentary loss of balance or a spontaneous reaction of a baffled and angry mind to a difficult situation. In this case violence owes its birth to deeply held convictions about ways and means of bringing about social, economic and political changes. Fortunately for us, the groups who believe in this ideology are small and fragmented. But it is also because of this that there is the danger of their potential for mischief being underestimated. The political parties in India will be making a serious mistake if they were to rely ex­clusively on the armed strength of the State for putting down such groups. As in the case of communal attitudes and values, a determined effort has to be made to change the ideas that people believe in. Violence in the pursuit of an ideology arises first in the minds of men and it is in the minds of men that the superiority of the democratic system will have to be established.

I have not dealt advisedly with the kind of changes that should occur in the political parties. For one thing, it is difficult to speak about political parties other than the one to which one belongs. However, it may be better to indicate in very boad outline the changes that are necessary in the style of functioning of political parties, and in the ideas and programmes which govern .their behaviour. It has been said that the Fourth General Elections brought to an end the era of one party dominance. There is little doubt that the elections in 1967 brought about a qualitative change in the Indian politics. Nevertheless, questions like coalitions in a multi-party system appear secondary to the central tasks before the political parties in the seventies.