THE INDIAN SCENE

PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA, M.A., D.Litt.

The outstanding event in the quarter April–June 1912 was the carrying on of the negotiations between India and Pakistan for a durable peace, first at the official level and next at the level of a summit meeting at Simla between the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan leading to the Simla Agreement signed on 2nd July. The negotiations at Simla were rather protracted and till the very last moment it appeared that they would break down as there was hard bargaining by both sides. UItimately between wisdom and good sense prevailed and the Agreement was the result. The Simla Agreement had been acclaimed as a historic basis one and was generally welcomed in the country except by the Jana Sangh, a few Socialists, and certain prominent leaders like Rajagopalachari and Acharya Kripalani. The welcome was based on the ground that, though it did not settle all the issues which lay at the root of misunderstandings between the two countries during the last twenty-five years, it was a first step in that direction and that it laid down an effective method for the purpose. Everyone recognised that it was only the first step and that several more should be taken before real peace could be established between the two countries and that the future alone would decide to what extent the method would prove really effective.

Of all the issues between the two countries Kashmir occupies a central place. All others like the evacuation of territories occupied during the last (December 1971) war and the release of prisoners of war are secondary in character. Kashmir is legally as much part of India as any other States like Andhra or Tamilnadu but Pakistan has not recognised this. It has laid claims to Kashmir as a whole and has been in illegal and forceful occupation of nearly a third of it. It has even ceded a part of it to China. All the three wars which it has so far waged against India were aimed at the conquest of the whole of the state. It was this aim that she entered into military alliances with the United States, (CEATO) and with states like Iran and Turkey (CENTO) and established intimate relations with Peking. Its advocacy of the principle of self-determination for the people of Kashmir has had the same aim. It is clear that there can be no lasting peace between the two countries unless Pakistan gives up its illegal claim to Kashmir and enters into a compromise with India considered reasonable by the latter. India has shown on more than one occasion her readiness to enter into such a compromise.

The question therefore would naturally be asked whether the Simla Agreement brought the settlement of the Kashmir issue nearer. It does so only remotely and indirectly. It does this in a variety of ways. In the first place the Agreement contains the clause: “The two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.” Commentators on the Agreement have drawn special attention to two points in this clause, viz., the stress on peaceful means for settling disputes and that on bilateral negotiations. It is a recognition on the part of Pakistan that wars like those of 1965 and 1971 could do little to settle issues like Kashmir. It is also a recognition that military alliances would be equally futile in bringing victory to her in such wars and that intervention by a third party like the U.N.O., which has had the Kashmir in its agenda all these years, would serve no purpose and that if the Kashmir issue has to be solved it can be done only through direct negotiations with India and not through mediation by a third party. Our Prime Minister was very firm throughout the Simla meeting on the method of bilateralism and it paid dividends in the end and it brought round President Bhutto to her point of view. This is an improvement on the Tashkent Agreement where the role of Soviet Russia was significant.

There is also in the Simla Agreement a more direct and positive reference to Kashmir. This is the clause which says: “Both sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for their establishment of durable peace and normalisation of relations, including a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and that both governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other.” This again is in contrast to Tashkent Agreement which merely said that Jammu and Kashmir was discussed and each of the sides set forth its respective positions and did not commit them to further discussions on the subject or to its final settlement.

A much more important aspect of the Simla Agreement is the clause which says: “In Jammu and Kashmir the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised positions of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter its unit laterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of use of force in violation of this line.” This clause is of the greatest significance in more than one way. At Tashkent we were persuaded, to give up the areas we occupied in Kashmir during the war of 1965, even though they included some strategic passes. Now Pakistan recognises our title to occupy the areas taken possession of in the war of 1971. This means that the old cease-fire line laid down in 1949 holds good no longer and that the U.N. observers who were functioning all these years in Kashmir will have no place and they should leave the area. Pakistan has, it is true some hesitation in accepting this outcome but India is firm on the issue. It has made clear that bilateralism is as necessary in regard to the new line as in regard to other matters at issue between the two countries. Finally this clause if adhered to in its true spirit rules out any encouragement to saboteaurs, infiltrators and other disturbers of peace. It thus marks a definite advance on Tashkent. Pakistan has now realised the realities of the situation in Kashmir. This will prevent it from interfering in its internal affairs and will also weaken her attempts to create tensions on this issue.

We may therefore conclude that though the Simla Agreement has not finally settled the Kashmir issue it has paved the way for such settlement. Whether President Bhutto will make use of this new way, enter into bilateral negotiations with India and come to a permanent understanding with India will of course depend on the internal situation in his own country. His position has not yet become fully stabilised. The army junta continues to be dominant. Democracy has not been established and popular forces which stand for peace not released. Above all there are the imperial powers–China and U. S. A.–which live on tensions in the sub-continent. China’s veto on the admission of Bangladesh to U.N.O. is evidence of this. All this goes to show that it is premature to take the view that the Simla Agreement has settled the issue of Kashmir. Bhutto has been harping on the right of the people of Kashmir for self-determination even after he signed the Agreement and invoking the intervention of U.N.O. in the matter. India cannot therefore afford to give up her vigilance and become complacent.

Of the two other issues arising out of the war of 1971–the withdrawal from occupied territory outside Kashmir and the returning of prisoners of war–only the former was settled at Simla. India agreed to withdraw from all the territory in Sind and Punjab. Being the victor in the war it could have retained this territory pending the settlement of the Kashmir issue. But both prudence and magnanimity prevailed with the Prime Minister. We did not wage war to conquer any part of Pakistan. Our object was primarily the liberation of Bangladesh. We realised this objective and prudence dictated that we should be content with it. Hence the willingness to withdraw from the occupied territory. This could not apply to Kashmir because what our forces occupied there is legally a part of our own country. As regards the return of the 90,000 prisoners of war the Prime Minister made India’s position quite clear and she had firmly adhered to it. The war in Bangladesh was fought jointly by the Indian army and the Mukti Vahini and the prisoners were under the joint control of the governments of both India and Bangladesh. They could not therefore be released unless with the consent of Bangladesh and that to secure her consent Pakistan should deal directly with her Government. The release therefore of the prisoners of war depends entirely on Bhutto’s readiness to confer with the representatives of the Government of Bangladesh. He however knows that no such conference is possible unless he recognises Bangladesh. He has not yet chosen to do so.

India also may not be prepared to release them–in spite of heavy cost involved in maintaining them–unless there is a guarantee that Pakistan would adhere to the path of peace as laid down in the Simla Agreement. The prisoners of war have been well-trained to fight and their release would mean the strengthening of Pakistan’s military arm. This necessitates India adopting a policy of caution in releasing them.

We now see what the Simla Agreement has been able to accomplish and the limitations under which it suffers. This is why our Prime Minister was careful to say that it was only the first step in the way to peace with Pakistan and that many more steps were necessary before peace could become a reality. We should continue to build our strength both on the military and economic fronts. We should also cement our friendship with Bangladesh and use all diplomatic skill to root out the anti-Indian forces which are active there. Though the Government of Bangladesh is committed to democracy and secularism there are remnants of the old Muslim League with its anti-Hindu and anti-Indian attitude raising their heads. There is also a powerful Communist party led by Maulana Bhashani with its pro-China sympathies. There is again an American lobby with its growing strength. All these are interested in fomenting anti-Indian feeling among the masses. They do not attach any value, to India’s role in liberating Bangladesh than the tyranny of Pakistan. This is the situation which Indian diplomacy has to face and every step has to be taken in consultation with the Government of Bangladesh to see that the kind of anti-Indian sentiment does not grow here as is found in Nepal or Ceylon. Friendly ties with Bangladesh are of far greater importance than even normal relations with Pakistan.

II

The elections to State Assemblies in March resulted in the Congress becoming the ruling party in all the states except in Tamilnadu, Orissa and Kerala where elections were not held, In Kerala the Congress is the dominant partner in the coalition Ministry which continues in power in spite of the tensions created by the agitation over the management of private colleges. In Orissa the Congress succeeded in its attempts to create rifts in the coalition Ministry and has become the ruling party with Nandini Satpathy as the Chief Minister. As in the case of Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Gujarat, she has been sent from Delhi to lead the Ministry as no local leader was found competent enough to hold the post. Tamilnadu today is the only state where non-Congress party holds power. But the D.M.K. has been accused the Central Congress leadership of trying to topple it. This may or may not be true. What is true is the almost complete hold of the Congress over the whole country. What we have is one-party rule.

One significant outcome of this is the attempt to transform verbal socialism to socialism in action. This attempt has taken the form of imposition of ceilings on agricultural holdings to be followed by similar ceilings on urban property. There is also a talk by the medieval section of the Congress party that there will soon be a ceiling on all incomes. We may now say that an Indian brand of socialism is taking shape.

Before we deal with the ceiling legislation on land holdings it will be appropriate to refer to the special conditions under which socialism has to develop in our country.

In the West which is the birth-place of modern socialism the demand for it came after the Industrial Revolution which made the countries in Western Europe quite affluent. There were large amounts of wealth for being distributed among the poorer sections of the people and for the effective removal of economic inequalities. So rich were the upper sections that they did not grudge parting with a portion of their wealth for the benefit of the poor. The surplus to be distributed was large and the distribution was effected more or less smoothly. Even the Conservative parties were not opposed to it.

In our Country the situation is different. India is still a backward country. Industrialisation is proceeding at rather a slow pace. The green revolution in agriculture has affected only certain areas. In spite of four five-year plans there has been no appreciable increase in per capita income. The increase in population at a rapid rate has stood to a great extent in the way of any such increase.

In socialism the stress is on the removal of economic inequalities and on greater equality between individual and individual. We have to do this before the country has become really affluent and before there is adequate surplus to be distributed. This is the crux of the situation.

During the last two decades the Congress gave priority to economic growth over social justice but now it is social justice that has acquired the place of priority. There may or may not be a growth in G.N.P. (Gross National Product in a year) but what exists should be equitably distributed even though it may adversely affect production. Concentration of wealth should be prevented and even Fundamental Rights should be discarded if it becomes necessary to bring about a wider diffusion of wealth. This appears to be the characteristic of Indian Socialism now evolving as a part of the Congress creed. This also explains why the public sector is being extended even though many of the concerns in it have not been bringing profits. In this view nationalisation of economy is a necessary instrument for achieving social justice.

III

It is against this background that we have to understand the excitement with which a country-wide agitation was carried on by the Congress party in favour of the imposition of ceilings on agricultural holdings and on urban property in the quarter April–June. The arguments put forward in favour of such imposition were economic, political and even social. It was contended that as a result of investment in irrigation, electric power, machinery, improved seed, fertilisers and so on the rich farmers have become richer while poorer ones as well as tenants and landless labourers continued to remain poor. Tenancy legislation has only resulted in the eviction of tenants and in rack-renting. Legislation regarding mininum wage for agricultural labourers has not produced any real benefit to them. If their condition is to be improved land should be taken from the rich farmers and distributed among the landless and those with uneconomic holdings. Moreover land is a gift of nature and its area is limited.

It is generally accepted that such gifts should be rationed among those who are in need of them.

Besides this it has been argued that in rural areas the rich farmers wield all political power because of their wealth and stand in the way of the effective functioning of democracy. Unless their power is reduced at its source the weaker sections of the rural society will continue to be weak. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister the Congress party is attempting to secure a hold over the weaker sections and be sure of their electoral support. The distribution of surplus land taken away from the rich farmers among the landless is considered to be an effective instrument for this purpose. The reduction of the political power of the rich farmers is also necessary if farm incomes are to be taxed. All along they have been standing in the way of such taxation.

Finally it is pointed out that the rich farmers invariably belong to the dominant castes like the Reddis, the Kammas, the Vokkaligars, the Lingayats, etc., and that a reduction of their economic and political power will be conducive to a modification of the rigidities of the caste system in rural areas. It is these castes that subject Harijans to all kinds of injustice and if governmental policies to improve their lot are to succeed, the dominance of the rich farmers-castes should be put an end to. It is on the basis and strength of arguments like these–economic, political and social–that opinion favourable to the imposition of ceilings on agricultural holdings has been created and that in almost all the states the Congress party in power has placed necessary legislation on the statute book. A few states have also evaded legislation imposing ceilings on urban property also. An important step has thus been taken in the direction of putting socialist policies into effect. Verbal socialism is being transformed into socialism in action.

But all problems arising out of this legislation have not yet been solved. There is first the problem of implementation. There is a wide-spread feeling that the earlier legislation on ceilings has not yielded much of surplus land for distribution because the officials whose responsibility is to implement the legislation colluded with the landlords who were rich enough to bribe them. Even today corruption is widely prevalent and there is no guarantee that officials will behave better in discharging their responsibility in discovering the surplus land. One suggestion is that Government should appoint village committees for the purpose. It remains to be seen whether non-officials will be less corrupt than officials.

Second problem is among whom should the surplas land be distributed–should preference be given to landless poor or to farmers who have uneconomic holdings? From the point of view of production the case of the farmers is strong. To make their holding economic will add to production. A landless labourer to whom one or two acres of land are given may not be able to make full use of it. Past experience shows that such persons prefer to sell away their lands or lease them to others.

A third problem is to provide the capital necessary to enable the new farmers to cultivate the lands given to them. This calls for better organisation of rural credit. Any failure or delay in doing this is sure to affect agricultural production.

Finally we come to a more serious problem. Farmers are permitted to own 10–18 acres of irrigated land under the new legislation. They are expected to cultivate it more intensively, invest more capital in improving it and produce more than what they did in the past. But will they do this? What guarantee is there that there will be no further reduction in ceilings in future? Many landless will ask “Why should some have ten acres? Why not reduce the area to five acres?” In terms of social justice such reduction is the only answer to the question. Such questions will be repeated until all private property in land is abolished and land becomes nationalized. Is the Congress party prepared for this? Is it prepared to introduce collective farming as in Soviet Russia? This should be the logical end to any legislation on ceilings.

Back