Few societies in the 19th and early 20th centuries remained untouched by theradical new idea of liberty, which implied both individual freedom and freedomfrom despotic rule. The leaders of India's anti-colonial struggle, in makingthe concept their own, expanded its purview.

But this definition of freedom,understood as socio-economic justice, was found to be fundamentally at oddswith its narrower meaning during the debates in the Constituent Assembly. As Professor John Harriss shows in this book, a fierce battle has thus playedout ever since the setting up of the Republic between what are referred to asnegative and positive freedoms, or, broadly, the guarantees of the FundamentalRights, and the goals of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The contesthas often been one between a judiciary adhering to the Constitution and aParliament pursuing what Nehru called 'real freedom' for the masses. SeveralConstitutional amendments-the 1st of 1951, the 24th and 25th of 1971, the42nd of 1976-ended up placing restrictions on individual freedoms as muchas they pushed the agenda of social reform.

Much worse happened, however, inthe name of national security, like the 16th Amendment of 1963, which broughtabout the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act four years later. With the curbingof our individual liberties and leaden steps, at best, towards reform undersuccessive governments, the central constitutional aim of liberty is still a longway off.

This monograph lucidly explains the difficult relationship between theConstitution and the Parliament, a relationship that must be clearly understoodif we are ever to strike the right balance between the freedom of the individualand 'real freedom', as dreamt of by those who founded the Indian republic. .