I have seen the letter entitled ‘Soviet Russia’ in the issue of FORUM dated 9th December, 1951 -a sort of a reply to my criticism of Soviet Russia in one of my earlier articles. Trying to answer my pointed questions the letter ends up by hitting back with the conclusion that the Democratic world is responsible for the perpetuation of the Iron Curtain.

The basic question remains. Why has Soviet Russia allowed herself to be dubbed as ‘a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma’. It would be an interesting subject to be discussed at length.

My idea in bringing in the comparison about the extent of freedom of speech and conscience in America to that existing in Soviet Russia, was only to show that while America believes in the individual’s basic right to freedom of expression as popularly conceived, Soviet Russia does not believe in any such nonsense or if she does believe, she is in no mood in letting others know about it. Why is the USSR so inhospitable to foreign visitors? This is not the question uppermost only in my mind. It is a question asked throughout the world outside the Iron Curtain. It may be true that the Soviet Union has marched leaps and bounds in bettering the lot of its citizens in the past few years as our recent visitors to that country loudly proclaim. But why all these happy things should be hidden from the outside world and shown only to a select few.

Now let us briefly examine the circumstances that necessitated the drawing of the Iron Curtain around the Soviet Union. Ever since the famed October Revolution, the Communists resorted to a regime of totalitarianism in order that the desired ends could be reached without obstruction from the people. This method proved disastrous and the Soviets were apprehensive about the impression this would have on the world outside. Perhaps the total failure can be taken as the total failure of Communism as a method of government.

The Iron Curtain was then brought down in order that the world outside may not know the ruthless reprisal that was going on there of those who dared to criticize and those who refused to work. After years of hard labour of the people, labour that always did not come voluntarily but brought out at the risk of personal liberty, the Soviet Union was able to achieve a normal standard of living at so late as 1948. Democracy as we conceive it works to the same end but with the cooperation of the workers. Workers are conceded the same freedom to stay away from work as to come to work.

Communism is not a bad thing after all but the way the Soviet government chose to work it out was not pleasant. Communism has many good points. In a series of articles in the “Manchester Guardian” recently, it has been said: ‘The Communists and the Soviet Government have always been concerned to provide latitude to workers who wish to criticize their immediate superiors because this has been the only way in which obstacles to higher output and greater industrial efficiency could be removed. The nature of the Soviet system as it has developed is such as to make this ‘freedom of criticism’ (emphasis author’s) largely illusory.’

In the international field we have seen Soviet Russia at her game. While their delegates cry peace at the U.N.O. her war and propaganda machinery have been at work in many of the trouble spots in the world. America has at least been honest enough to admit that she has been fighting for the preservation of personal liberty of human beings. America has not lagged behind in giving succor to many under developed countries with her boundless wealth and technical help. Why does Soviet Russia lag behind in humanitarian work?