‘The Triple Stream’¹

BY K. RAMAKOTISWARA RAU

Nehru, as Peace-maker

In the difficult conditions created by the flare-up in Korea, the Indian Prime Minister sought to play the role of a peace-maker. The effort is certainly praiseworthy and it indicates Republican India’s resolve to hold the balance between the warring blocs. As a member of the Commonwealth, India is technically allied to the Anglo-American group of countries. She is also interested in checking the spread of Communism in Asia, especially when the Communist Party of India is ranged in insurrectionary opposition to the National Government at New Delhi. Membership of the Commonwealth, however, is not the sole test of India’s position in international affairs. As a matter of fact, Pandit Nehru has always emphasised India’s right to determine her foreign policy, unhampered by any commitments, and even to maintain a neutral attitude in case of an armed conflict between the Powers. The recognition of Communist China by India is a clear proof of the Nehru Government’s capacity to play an independent part without waiting to be led by Britain or the U.S.A. The peace move initiated by India reflects India’s anxiety to localise the conflict, and prevent a world conflagration. A discussion in the Security Council with Communist China represented on it might have led to tangible results, including the withdrawal of the North Korean forces to the 38th Parallel. But America, as the controlling power in the U.N.O., took a strictly legalistic view and insisted that the question of Communist China’s representation ought not to be mixed up with the immediate problem; as a proclaimed aggressor, North Korea must retrace its steps. This unhelpful attitude blocked all further attempts on India’s part to ease the situation.

But India is a party to the Security Council’s resolution on Korea; she is pledged to render aid to South Korea, even though that Aid may be confined to the despatch of a medical mission. Russia’s lightning decision to suspend her boycott of the U.N.O., and to permit her representative to preside over the meetings of the Security Council this month must create a new situation. While India will not help Russia to reverse the Security Council’s previous resolution on Korea, she is bound to vote for the representation of Communist China on all bodies of the U.N.O. including the Security Council. The latest Russian move is not an indication of Soviet Russia’s desire to co-operate with all other States in the restoration of a peaceful atmosphere. On the other hand, it is a step in furtherance of her designs to weaken the U.N.O., by imposing her veto at every turn. It is also a step in her peace-offensive.

Kashmir and the U.N.O.

Pandit Nehru’s efforts to restore peace in Korea have been discounted by certain sections of the British and American Press; they question why a settlement has not been reached with Pakistan over the Kashmir issue. India is accused of deliberately blocking the plebiscite in Kashmir with a view to perpetuating her sway over that State. But it was India which made the offer of a plebiscite, though the offer was made to the people of Kashmir and not to Pakistan, the unwanted aggressor. The U.N.O., bungled by seeking to place India and Pakistan on the same level, even after its own Commission reported the presence of Pakistan troops in the valley. It fur complicated matters, when it virtually recognised the Azad Kashmir administration as the local authority, having a status similar to that of the Abdullah Government. The latest effort of the U. N. Mediator Sir Owen Dixon, to find an agreed basis for further negotiations has not been successful. Kashmir has been an integral part of India ever since its accession, and the Government of India is thus charged with the duty of protecting the State against all aggressors. Any plan of demilitarisation envisaged by Sir Owen Dixon must take note of this primary consideration. Indian troops are needed not merely for the maintenance of law and order with the Collaboration with the Government of that State, but also to protect the citizens of all parts of the State–including those at present occupied by Pakistan controlled troops–from violence. India has not withdrawn her offer of a plebiscite nor has she attempted to evade it. But she maintains that the withdrawal of Pakistan troops and of all outside elements from every inch of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is a pre-requisite to the holding of a plebiscite. The subtle propaganda in favour of the eventual partition of Kashmir on the basis present cease-fire line must be counteracted. In her anxiety to find a peaceful solution India has conceded point after point, which she deemed of minor significance. But a limit must be set somewhere. Any yielding on the question of the ‘simultaneous’ withdrawal of the Indian and Pakistan forces from Kashmir, or on the question of holding a plebiscite while yet some parts of the State are garrisoned by Pakistan troops, will prove fatal. If, however, Sir Owen Dixon can propose a solution satisfactory to India and to the people of Kashmir without the need to hold a plebiscite, India will give earnest thought to it. And Sir Owen’s powers are wide enough to cover even such a solution.

Socialists and Communists

Originating as compact, organised groups within the National Congress, the Socialists and the Communists are now functioning as independent parties with clear-cut ideologies and programmes. As the general elections are drawing near, they are marshalling their forces in order to try conclusions with the party in power. They do expect to function as the Government either at the Centre or in the various States of the Indian Union, but they hope to wean away large numbers of Indian citizens from their allegiance to the Congress. The Congress had to change overnight from a fighting organisation to a government making body. In the process of adjusting itself to new conditions, it has made mistakes. There has not been enough time at its command to thoroughly overhaul its organisational side; conflicts have arisen between the Congress bodies and the Congress Ministries at various levels. To add to this, the presence of large numbers of ‘heroes’ in the erstwhile fight for freedom clamouring for rewards, has inevitably led to a certain amount of corruption and of favouritism to ensure loyalty to the party. These things happen in every country in the first stages of freedom, but the evils were accentuated in India by the lack of a vigilant organised public opinion; While a certain amount of evil undoubtedly exists, the tendency has been to magnify it and use it as a means of discrediting both the Ministries and the Congress bodies. Curiously enough, Congressmen have come to hate each other more cordially than they are hated by non-Congressmen. Even the highest dignitaries of the Congress organisation find themselves powerless to restrain their following or to bring about harmony between rival groups. In the process, the Presidentship of the Congress has been robbed of its prestige; the President is no longer the Rashtrapati, for that appellation has been quietly transferred to the President of the Republic. The Congress is today a house divided against itself, and unless effective measures are taken at Nasik to stop the rot, the great organisation will suffer an eclipse.

But despite all this, the Congress continues to be the largest and the most widely respected political party in India. It is fairly certain to be returned in comfortable majorities everywhere, and form the Governments at New Delhi and in the States. But a strong opposition is bound to function in every legislature, and prevent the evils of perpetual one-party rule.

It is in this context that the recent moves of the socialists and the Communists acquire some significance.

In every scheme of ‘leftist consolidation’, the Socialists and the Communists have kept clear of each other. The Socialists will under no circumstances coalesce with the Communists or condone the methods, for the Socialists are wedded to the ideal of ‘Democratic Socialism’; they prefer to pursue democratic methods and make use of the machinery provided by the Republican Constitution to achieve their ends. In his mental make-up and his general approach to national problems, Sri J. P. Narain is much nearer to Nehru than to Joshi or Ranadive. He will not accept dictation from a body like the Cominform nor indulge in violence and bloodshed. The Socialists are also breaking up into groups but Sri J. P. N arain and Sri Narendra Deva may be trusted to keep a hold on the party, and win a position for it in the legislatures, though parliamentary power is not their prime objective. At present the Socialist leaders are unable to gather large numbers into their fold because there is no nation-wide constructive effort to their credit. The few that gather under the banner are disgruntled Congressmen or non party men who believe in attaching themselves to a party without a record–clean or unclean–in order to make an appeal to the electorate on the strength programmes not yet tried.

The Communist Party of India covered itself with ignominy during the war period and during the first years of freedom, by adopting a frankly anti-national attitude. Their campaign of murder, loot and arson has thoroughly discredited them. And their allegiance to an outside power is the weakest point in their armour, for, in the name of world-revolution, they are antagonising the progressive, but peace-loving, sections of their countrymen. No one believes in their recently advertised change of front; it may be yet another ruse to ‘legalise’ themselves and fight the elections. The country has suffered too much from their insurrectionary methods to put trust to their new professions of peaceful intentions.

The contest will hereafter lie between a rejuvenated Congress and the Socialists. The others will align themselves with these parties and prepare the way for a two-party system, which alone can safe-guard our Democratic State.

Writers in Free India

While the leaders of political parties are measuring their strength, those who value the things of the mind continue to devote themselves to literature and the arts. The National Government of India is anxious to help literary and artistic effort, but it is preoccupied with matters of more immediate concern. Its cultural programmes are halting and infructuous; the requisite funds are not available. Private bodies like the P.E.N. India Centre, under Srimathi Sophia Wadia’s leadership, are struggling against odds to keep alive the interest in the literatures in the various regional languages and to coordinate the efforts of literary persons and associations. The Conferences at Jaipur (1945) and Benares (1947) formed important landmarks in our cultural history, for they brought together the litterateurs of India and representatives of foreign cultural organisations. Further P.E.N. Conferences have not been held, because the Government of India wished to take the initiative in calling an all-India literary conference.

“Writers in Free India” is the record of the notable gathering at Benares under the presidentship of Srimathi Sarojini Devi, National President of the P.E.N., and Governor of the U. P., proclaimed her faith that “Literature is the only way in which truth of life can be kept alive.” During the five-day session, important papers were read and discussions held on problems relating to literary expression and the responsibilities of writers. The first part of the volume gives a fairly accurate version of them all, while the second gives a brief account of the growth of the Indian literatures between the Jaipur and Benares sessions. But those were the years when the post-war depression weighed heavily on all literary effort, and the partition of the country created fresh difficulties. The triumph of the freedom struggle, however, is reflected in all our literatures.

In the early stages of freedom, maybe for a decade or two the writers are apt to be neglected. Success will come only to such of them as are able to body forth the prevailing discontent. The literature ‘of the moment’ will score over the literature ‘of all time’, but the abiding values of life are bound to assert themselves. Writers in Free India, if they are to fulfill their destiny, must not be afraid to dream, must not fight shy of sentiment. And while giving expression to their inmost thoughts, they must learn to love the work of kindred scripts writing in other Indian languages, or in languages other than Indian. In every linguistic area, groups of scholars must de themselves to the study of languages, and function as ambassadors of culture by translating from one language into another. Through the monthly Bulletin, The Indian P.E.N., the P.E.N. India Centre has broadcast information about the literary movements all over India, and spread ‘sweetness and light’.

Pity the Students!

Politicians have their fads, and those fads must perforce be experimented upon the young. Educational theory, the capacity of the student, and even commonsense are being set at naught in South India in the excessive zeal to multiply the number of languages taught in schools. The first glimmer of light in all this chaos is provided by the Education Minister’s heroic effort to let off a youngster with two languages, but leaving him free to learn four if he wishes to. Knowledge of words is not necessarily knowledge of things; it may not be a step to wisdom. The mother-tongue, the regional language, the classical language, the ‘national’ or federal language, and the international language–all these have their advocates. There can be no objection to anyone learning even a dozen languages, if he is so inclined, but most of us ought to be content with two. No compulsion can be exercised with regard to any language other than the mother-tongue till the child reaches the lower secondary stage; and then let him choose freely between Hindi and English as a second language right up to the end of the high school course. At present both Hindi and English are being given compulsorily from the first form. Let our leaders at New Delhi make up their minds definitely on this point–that it is injurious to teach three languages simultaneously and compulsorily at the first form stage. If students and their parents are free to decide between Hindi and English from the first to the sixth form, any possible deficiency can be made up by providing a language test in Hindi for all-India services for those who have not taken it during their school course.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission, students all over India at the University level will learn English compulsorily, though the medium of instruction may be an Indian language; In addition, we may expect that schools of foreign languages will be established at important centres, and provision made at every University for the advanced study of five or six Indian languages.

¹August 2.