BY K. RAMAKOTISWARA RAU

With ancient pomp and ceremony, King George VI was crowned on the 12th of this month. The idea of a constitutional monarchy, linking together the many peoples of a far-flung Commonwealth, is indeed a noble one. The new King, though called to the Throne unexpectedly and under strange conditions, may be trusted to prove a great, Ruler and a great man, and to fill the role of a constitutional monarch to perfection.

In the midst of these rejoicings, India remains sullen. The Indian problem is like a running sore; the Constitution imposed on the country, and the manner of working it in the initial stages, are not calculated to heal that sore. India must be forgiven if she has failed to enthuse over the Coronation. No question of discourtesy to the person of the King arises in such a case: there can be no gladness of spirit so long as the body is held in thrall.

Discussion on the constitutional deadlock, in what may be called the Congress Provinces, continues to absorb public attention. Statements and counter-statements, interviews and explanations, have now clarified the position. The issue is narrowed down to the actual mode of termination of ‘fruitful relations’ between a Governor and the Ministry, where agreement is found to be impossible. The Congress insists that the Governor should shoulder the responsibility of dismissing his Ministers, or, what amounts to the same thing, calling for their resignation. The idea behind this demand seems to be that there need be no interference at all with the constitutional activities of the Ministers; but when a Governor is convinced that the proper discharge of his duties requires such interference, he should first get rid of the Ministry. In other words, so long as a responsible Ministry is functioning, he ought not to interfere; the moment interference commences, responsibility ceases. And it ceases, not by the Ministers tendering resignation voluntarily and appealing to the electorate, but by the Governor himself taking the initiative.

While the Congress view is definite on this point, the Secretary of State makes no reference to it in his latest pronouncement. It is being urged in certain quarters that the distinction between dismissal and resignation is trivial. In that case, it ought not to be difficult for the Viceroy or the Governors to give the required assurance. The need for some kind of assurance is obvious. For many long years, the relations between the Congress and the Government have been strained, and before embarking on a new course of action, the Congress leaders wish to make sure of the constitutional position.

To such of us as are opposed to office-acceptance under the present Constitution, there is an air of unreality in the latest phase of these discussions. The Congress is strong with the strength of the electorate behind it; if a break with the Governor is inevitable, the Ministers need not always wait for the Governor to call for their resignation. They may decide for themselves whether a first-class political issue is available on which they might resign and go before the electorate. They can then come back in greater strength. If the stage has been properly set for the formation of Congress Ministries, and if the advocates of office-acceptance believe that the forces making for Swaraj can be reinforced by the Parliamentary programme of the Congress, they can go forward and form Ministries without prolonged discussions about the relative merits of dismissal and resignation. Events seem to tend that way. The Legislatures are likely to be summoned in July, and Congress Ministers may be expected to be in the saddle by August. We may then witness the end of these anomalous interim Ministries which, despite their vaunted programmes and the praise so lavishly bestowed by the Zetlands and the Brabournes, occupy an unenviable position in the public life of the land.

The Madras Provincial Education Conference which met at Tanjore early this month forms a landmark in the history of education in South India. Under Sjt. C. Rajagopalachariar’s wise guidance, leading educationists pressed for a new orientation in educational methods, particularly during the secondary stage.

Two features of the scheme demand all-India attention, namely, the plea for the mother-tongue being the medium of instruction right through the school course, and the compulsory teaching of Hindustani. The public mind has been thoroughly roused with regard to the former, and teachers and laymen are almost unanimous about the imperative need to employ the mother-tongue. There is no valid reason why it should not occupy the same pre-eminence during the University stage.

Hindustani is a new-comer and very welcome. It has to be taught as a second language in every non-Hindustani Province at some stage of the school course. From the proceedings, it would appear that the sponsors of the resolution wish to commence the teaching of two new languages–Hindustani and English–simultaneously at the beginning of the lower secondary stage, when the child is barely nine years old. This is sure to impose a wholly unnecessary strain on boys and girls. In our enthusiasm for filling the brains of our future citizens with everything that we consider desirable, we are apt to forget that the intellectual growth of children may be hampered. The reading and writing of the mother-tongue can be taught when the child is five, and Hindustani when it is ten. There is no need to further burden the curriculum with a third language like English till the commencement of the higher secondary stage, when Hindustani ceases to be taught compulsorily. Some years hence, it will be realised that nothing is lost if English is not taught in our schools, except as an optional subject from the fourth form. As a necessary equipment for highly cultured people, English can be taught in all colleges. Any teaching of English beyond these limits will be a futility.

It is knowledge of things and not of words that is important. There is no point in piling up language upon language and script upon script, as a measure of general re-organisation. Precocious children, with a gift for languages, can of course learn half-a-dozen languages. But two languages acquired compulsorily at school, and a third at college, must suffice for most of us.

BACK