SOCIAL SCIENTIST a civil war. Approximately similar outcome had followed under the oligarchic authorities—against the coteries who had assumed unbridled power by taking advantage of the inadequacies of some existing constitutions, or by defying and going above these. Since their rights were flouted, and the channels of ventilating their grievance choked under the oligarchic regimes, the subjects had little alternative for righting the public wrongs except by taking recourse to counter-physical force, or armed resistance in the forms of mutinies, insurrections or rising and civil wars. In other words, in the by-gone pre-modern times of straight forward monarchic and oligarchic governmental set-ups, the only way perhaps the people could object to, and oppose what they believed to be a misrule was by opting for the use of counter-physical force, or by offering armed resistance. Apparently, however, the offering of armed resistance or the resorting to counter-physical force was no less bounteous in the days of emergent modernism, despite its trumpeted reliance on popular will, individual liberty, social justice, constitutional finesse and administrative equipoise. It had been noticed, and is still being seen, that even in the most skillfully devised democratic set-up the public opinion on critical issues could be callously ignored, civil liberties ruthlessly trumpled, and popular interests—affecting the lives of the multitude or a large section of it—rudely thrown away. If a democracy is overwhelmed by a coalesce of certain classes and categories, without its being able to become genuinely people's democratic, and if it operates in a society/societies whose exploitation-base has not been substantially undermined either gradually or drastically, some public wrongs of grave nature shall continue intermittently to take place, and the quest for remedial actions, including armed resistance, whether one likes it or not, may still be very much in vogue. But even after conceding all this, one can hardly be indifferent to the great strength of modern liberal democratic traditions—their ideals of the equality and sovereignty of people, and their instrumentality in bringing about such fundamental concepts of governance as the establishment of the rule of law, the separation of the state powers, the introduction of the universality of the suffrage, the guaranteeing of the civil rights, the working out of the constitutional checks and balances. Although the set of basic ills that is congenital to socially exploitative systems still continues to plague the people, it seems that, under the liberal democratic constitutions, the channels of ventillating popular grievances has, to a certain extent, cleared, the methods of mobilising public attention systematised, the means of pressurising the authorities