A New Approach

The recent decision of the Congress Parliamentary Board permitting legislators of other democratic parties to enroll themselves on an individual basis, as associate members of the Congress Legislature Parties at the Centre and in the States, is a welcome step towards the reintegration of the groups which broke away from the parent organisation on the eve of the last General Elections. A beginning was made in this direction when the Andhra members of the Krishikar Lok Party agreed to co-operate with their fellow Andhra Congress legislators as associates. While all parties will continue to function as distinct bodies outside the legislatures, their members will deem themselves members of the Congress Legislature Party and be bound by its discipline for purposes of debate and voting. The Parliamentary Board lays it down as a pre-requisite that a three-fourths majority of the Congress Legislature Party, local or central, should agree to the enrolment of such associate members. This is meant to be a safeguard against indiscriminate extension of membership and the possible swamping of the congress Legislature Party by legislators other groups, who might seek eventually to dominate the party and divert its energies to their own ends.

The merger of the Socialist and Praja parties, and later, the negotiations between Pandit Nehru and Sri J. P. Narain for closer co-operation, indicate that there is a widespread desire to draw together the scattered democratic forces in the country and weld them into a powerful organisation. It is true the Praja-Socialists have for the moment chosen to keep aloof and not to enter into a coalition with the Congress, except in Andhra. But the points of view of the two great leaders are not so irreconcilable. Doctrines and creeds, ideals and dreams, are necessarily divergent even where there is fundamental agreement on the methods to be adopted by a constitutional Parliamentary democracy. The Socialist leaders recognise that there is much in common between themselves and the leaders of the Congress, while there is a corresponding cleavage between either of them and parties like the Jan Sangh and the Communists. Sri J. P. Narain’s close association with a movement like the Bhoodan is a pointer in this direction. His refusal to support the Jammu agitation is another.

It was evident at the time of the General Elections that the average voter was bewildered by the multiplicity of parties between whom the divergences were not very marked. Especially in the South, candidates belonging to the Congress, Socialist, K. M. P. and K. L. P. organisations went about the country asking for support, but failing to convince the electors about the superior validity of their respective programmes. As a result, the voter very often cast his vote not for a party but for a person, and when he preferred a Communist it was because the rest had all been Congressmen till recently and it was difficult to choose between the many groups. The Communists, at any rate, had a distinct outlook and programme, and, performance apart, their promises of a new heaven made a great appeal.

After the experience of the post-election period, there must be a re-alignment of parties. Even if there are no further mergers or coalitions, it ought to be possible for parties and groups with previous Congress affiliations and sharing a common faith in parliamentary methods, to come closer. Thus will our infant democracy function with greater success, and protect itself against the reactionary or revolutionary forces threatening it. In this context, the decision of the Congress to admit associate members is fraught with far-reaching consequences. The Congress, under Nehru’s leadership, has made up its mind to invite Co-operation on an agreed programme. There is bound to be a wide response from all those who owe allegiance to the Constitution and are anxious to build on that foundation the edifice of a progressive and prosperous Republic.

Andhra and Karnataka

Following the Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament on the 25th of March, steps are being taken for the formation of an Andhra State by the 1st of October. The Andhra members of the Madras Legislature are due to meet on the 1st of June, to select a place within the territory of the new State for the location of the temporary Capital. Despite Justice Wanchoo’s recommendation, the Tamil leaders refused to accommodate the Andhra Capital, even temporarily, in Madras, and the Government of India endorsed that refusal. The Andhras are obliged to confront a difficult situation. No single town in Andhra is qualified to be the Capital, as Justice Wanchoo recognised after an arduous personal survey. All that the Andhra legislators can do to meet their immediate needs is to name some town–Visakhapatnam or Vijayawada–as a token Capital, accommodating the Secretariat and the Legislature, and then distribute the various departments at different centres.

This will mean a lack of proper control and a dissipation of time and energy in the routine tasks of administration. The prospects of securing Hyderabad as the permanent Capital of a future Visala Andhra are not very bright. A new city has got to be built on the banks of the Krishna with funds provided by the Centre. The plans and estimates must be prepared almost immediately and the construction commenced early next year. The lure of Hyderabad cannot be allowed to delay the construction of a proper Capital. If, at some time in the future, Hyderabad becomes available, there will be two great cities of the first rank in Andhra, like Lucknow and Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh, or Bombay and Poona in Western India. The new State starts with some disadvantages; the worst of them is the uncertainty about a Central Headquarters. The terms ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’ are elusive and likely to mislead men’s minds. If the Andhra legislators can decide upon the construction of a city on the banks of the Krishna as suggested above, the new State can settle down in a few years, and devote attention to the many and urgent problems of reconstruction.

Meanwhile, a bitter controversy has raged over the future of the town and taluk of Bellary. Justice Misra conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report to the Government of India, whose final award will be given in a week’s time. Each side is so convinced about the justness of its own point of view that any decision must cause disappointment to one of them. Throughout the chequered history of South India, a spirit of friendliness has subsisted between the Andhras and the Kannadigas, more especially during the great days of Vijayanagara, Their literatures have developed on nearly identical lines. In the modern period, the lyric and the short story have attained a high level excellence in the twin languages of Kannada and Telugu. More than thirty years ago, the demand for it Province of Karnataka followed close upon that of Andhra. The final emergence of a Samyukta Karnataka including Mysore and the Kannada areas of Hyderabad, and a Visala Andhra including the city of Hyderabad and the Telangana districts of the State, will be welcomed with equal satisfaction by both the peoples. With this background and this hope for the future, Bellary was a comparatively minor issue which could have been settled by the leaders sitting round a table. But what are called the ‘popular elements’ got out of hand. It was with difficulty that they were controlled during the few days when Justice Misra’s enquiry was proceeding.

If every inch of territory is to be similarly fought for, wherever opposing claims are urged by sister States of the Indian Union–Bengal and Bihar, Andhra and Orissa, Mahabharata and Gujarat–the task of restoring harmony will be arduous. Therefore, sooner or later, a boundary commission or commissions will have to conduct an impartial survey on an all-India basis and determine the boundaries of the States. The way to meet the demand for linguistic States is not to ignore or oppose it, but to satisfy it in a spirit of sympathy and understanding. Once the problem is solved–and the disintegration of Hyderabad is necessary for such a solution–it will be enough to provide adequate safeguards for the cultural rights of linguistic minorities in accordance with the Indian Constitution. A policy of drift will only exacerbate existing differences and impede the growth of Indian unity. Regional patriotism is a valuable asset, and, if properly directed, it will contribute in a great measure to the ultimate progress of the nation. To characterise it as ‘primitive’ or ‘tribal’ is to invite trouble and deepen discontent. Statesmanship consists in facing realities. Let us not forget that the demand is not for independent sovereign States, but for a re-distribution of administrative units on a reasonable basis.

Prof. K. T. Shah

After the formation of an advisory Board for Triveni in 1930, Prof. K. T. Shah was on it continuously. His passing away deprives the Journal of the sage counsel and valuable co-operation of a front rank economist. When I approached him with a request to let me include his name, and urged as a reason that Dr. Radhakrishnan had already agreed, he replied with characteristic geniality: “I am willing to follow where Radhakrishnan leads.” During many years of struggle and repeated migrations between Madras, Bangalore and Masulipatnam, it has always been a matter of pride for me that distinguished scholars and publicists have honoured Triveni by their presence on the Advisory Board. There were never any formal meetings of the Board, but I could consult the members individually whenever guidance was needed in the performance of what has all along been an uphill task.

Prof. K. T. Shah was primarily a scholar. Economics was his chosen field, and he adorned the Chair of Economics at the Bombay University for several years. His books on Indian Finance are accepted as authoritative. But he was also greatly interested in several aspects of Indian culture, and wrote a book on our artistic achievement–‘The Splendour that was Ind.” Later he entered politics and was a prominent member of the Indian Constituent Assembly which converted itself into our first Parliament. He was not in agreement with the official Congress, and even stood for the Presidentship as against Dr. Rajendra Prasad. He was noted for the frank expression of his point of view, even at the risk of unpopularity, and for the utter sincerity with which he fought many a losing battle. Indian scholarship and public life are the poorer today on account of his demise: Triveni offers grateful homage to his memory.

Back