‘THE TRIPLE STREAM’ *

By K. Ramakotiswara Rau

Nehru and the Congress

It is unfortunate that India’s leading political organisation has to face an internal crisis when the General Elections are drawing near. A great institution like the Congress, which owed its success mainly to the efforts of Gandhiji and his followers, ought not to fritter its energies in domestic quarrels, while problems of first-rate national importance await solution. The winning of freedom is but the first step in our march towards the achievement of the noble objectives laid down in our Constitution. Between now and the end of the year is the testing time. The vast millions of our countrymen admitted to universal franchise must decide between rival policies and programmes, and thereby indicate the shape of things to come in the political as well as the economic and cultural spheres. And well-organised political parties are needed to guide the electorate.

The Congress has no prescriptive right to the governance of the country. But at the crucial moment in our history when Britain resolved to ‘divide and quit’, the Congress was running the Governments in most of the Provinces and was the senior partner at the centre. It could not, despite Gandhiji’s suggestion, divest itself of the responsibility of governing the country till the first General Elections under the new Republican Constitution. Even in the framing of that constitution, the Congress had to play a prominent role with the co-operation of eminent individuals outside its ranks. To argue that on the 15th of August 1947 the Congress should have dissolved itself, is to miss the significance of the events that led to the change-over of power from British to Indian hands. The Constituent Assembly was already in session and that Assembly was to act as a provisional Parliament to which the new Cabinet was responsible. If the provisional arrangements had to subsist longer than was originally intended, it was because firstly of the upheaval following on partition, and secondly of the difficulty of creating the huge electoral machinery of the new Democracy.

The Central Cabinet, with Nehru as Prime Minister, worked under difficult conditions. Its lapses were many, but none can deny that behind it all was an earnest desire to serve the country and its people. There is always an inherent contradiction in a fighting organization becoming a Government. The qualities needed are different, and even the best of leaders wobble. But with the experience of the past few years, the Congress ought to go forward and provide a stable, yet progressive, Government for a term of five years. Thus only can the gains of freedom be consolidated and the foundations laid for the future. Other parties can educate the electorate, win support for their programmes, and function in healthy opposition to the Congress in the various Legislatures. But there does not seem to be any chance of an alternative government during the next term.

Even the best friends of the Congress do not, however, wish its continuance in power without an immediate and radical change in it outlook. Power has corrupted it and the secession of some of its choice spirits has robbed it of a portion of its prestige. It is the presence of Nehru which, in the view of millions, makes the Congress dependable Party. To go to the polls and to seek power without the dynamic personality of Nehru, would be to court disaster. He is today the one man in the Congress who can be trusted to re-vitalize it. His resignation from the Executive has not come as a surprise, for events since the last session of the Congress at Nasik have marked a decline in the morale of Congressmen. The politics of the U.P. have intruded into the all-India sphere, and today the Congress has to make a choice between Tandon and Nehru. The President of the Congress is technically right when he claims sole responsibility for the formation of the Working Committee. He may even command a majority at the next meeting of the A.I.C.C. But that would be a victory worse than defeat. Nehru has all along made it clear that he does not want Tandon to retire from the Presidentship. But, in view of recent developments, he is keen on a complete overhauling of the Executive. Tandon did not agree at Bangalore, nor is he likely to do so at Delhi. And he has complicated matters by insisting that Governments formed under Congress auspices must be guided by the Congress Executive. That attitude was perhaps correct with reference to the days before Independence, when the Governments in the Provinces were subordinated to an autocratic Central Government at Delhi, and the final stages of the freedom fight had yet to be gone through. It is the Congress Legislature Parties rather than the Congress organisation that should now guide the Cabinets, Central or States’. This is in accordance with democratic practice in recent times.

The country is awaiting with trepidation the outcome of the split between the Tandonites and the Nehruites. Senior leaders are striving to bring about an understanding, but so far all attempts in that direction have failed. To the common citizens of the country who look forward to a rejuvenated Congress wielding power for another term, the solution is clear. The A.I.C.C. should request the present members of the Working Committee and the Election Committee to resign voluntarily, and then authorise Tandon and Nehru to reconstitute the Committees so as to win the confidence of the country. The policy of drift must cease, and the titular Head of the Congress learn to respect the wishes of the real leader of the Congress and the nation.

The Kashmir Tangle

Persistent talk of a ‘Jehad’ has led to further estrangement between India and Pakistan. The Prime Minister of Pakistan objects to the stationing of Indian troops near the frontier, though he is well aware that this move was necessitated by the growing war-mindedness of Pakistan. The so-called peace-move on his part is a crude attempt to put India in the wrong and to score a debating point for purposes of international propaganda. The invitation to Nehru to visit Karachi for a personal discussion was coupled with conditions which India could not possibly accept without stultifying itself. The prolonged correspondence between the Prime Ministers has ceased, but not the unbridled insolence of the Pakistan press and leader. India, however, has definitely stated that she has no aggressive designs against Pakistan, while she is ready to resist any violation of Indian territory, including in that term the State of Kashmir.

It is well to bear in mind that Sir Owen Dixon was positive that Pakistan was the aggressor in Kashmir according to all accepted canons of international law. It is still a mystery why the Security Council did not proceed on that basis but, instead, sought to put Pakistan and India on the same level. It urged a simultaneous withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces from Kashmir and the virtual suspension of the validly constituted Government of Kashmir. India declared her willingness to implement the resolutions of the Security Council to which she was a party, subject to the assurances given by the U. N. Commission on Kashmir at the time when the resolutions were accepted by India. It is highly improper to ignore the assurances,–which related to the presence in Kashmir of Indian and State troops during the period of the Plebiscite,–or to suggest that their interpretation should be left to an arbitrator like Admiral Nimitz. The entire issue was clouded by the desire of the Anglo-American bloc to confer an unfair tactical advantage on Pakistan.

In India, there is no panic. All political parties and all communities, including the Muslims of India, are resolved to resist aggression. Anxious for a peaceful settlement India, conceded point after point before the Security Council, till a position was reached when this spirit of accommodation was actually mistaken for weakness. Further yielding would have meant a betrayal of Kashmir. The people of Kashmir, under Sheikh Abdullah’s heroic leadership, claim the right to decide their own future. They are not misled by the two-nation theory; they perceive that their interests are linked with India. According to them, no outside power can be permitted to interfere in the affairs of Kashmir, and Pakistan which sought to enslave them by abetting the raiders cannot claim the allegiance of Kashmir on the ground that there is a Muslim majority in the State. Kashmir and the Kashmiris will ring the death-knell of the obnoxious two nation theory. A vigorous blow has already been given to it by the leading Muslim statesmen of India in their recent memorandum to Dr. Graham. This is a revealing document, which thoroughly exposes the pretensions of Pakistan as the champion of Islamic interests.

Scattered all over India, there are gifted individuals who have given two or three decades of devoted service to the cause of journalism. The call came to them early in life, and they found their way into the offices of leading newspapers published in English or Indian languages. But except in a few cases, their lot has not been happy. Overworked and underpaid, and often discharged at short notice, they had to migrate from one paper to another, starting each time at the bottom rung. With the growth of what are called ‘chain’ newspapers run by powerful individuals in the various cities of India, it has become increasingly difficult for these displaced journalists to find fresh employment. By aptitude and training, they are fit for high-class work in a specialised field, and they cannot in their late forties or middle fifties change into a new profession. The careers C. V. H. Rao and K. Rama Rao, who have been turned adrift time after time, illustrate this position. A few have adventured ‘on their own’ and started weeklies and monthlies which are usually choked off after a few years of precarious existence, unless they belong to the cheap, sensational type. C.P. Rao who sustained heavy losses on his Premier and Citizen at Vijayawada has had to go back to daily journalism in Bombay. The journalists without personal means are at a disadvantage compared with friends of the same intellectual calibre in professions like law, teaching, and the administrative services. And yet, there is something in journalism, as there is in art or literature, which attracts the best minds attuned to idealism. The pity is that this very idealism places them at the mercy of the Press Barons who have of late, turned Indian journalism from a mission to a mere business proposition. We seem to have travelled a long way from the A.B. Patrika of Motilal Ghose, the Leader of Chintamani, the New India of Dr. Annie Besant, and the ill-starred Swarajya of Prakasam.

The saddest instance of a career of prolonged strugg1e is that of poor Nyapati Narayana Murty, who passed away recently while working as Editor of a new Telugu weekly, which was wound up immediately after his demise. Prior to that he was on a short-lived daily. Sometimes, he had his own personal ventures, beginning with the brilliant Andhra Vani in his home-town of Berhampore. He came of a family of distinguished lawyers, and was marked out for the ancestral profession, But in the B.A. class in one of the Madras Colleges, Non-co-operation claimed him. Then followed the usual round of Congress work, imprisonment at intervals, sporadic employment in newspaper offices, a brief term in the Central Legislature, unemploymennt and poverty. Narayana Murty was dear to me, and the story of his life of adventure and aspiration moved me deeply. Like many in South India, I shall miss his sweet presence and the example of his heroic fight against adversity. He was an eloquent speaker, and his kindly smile added to his charm.

But, must conditions continue to be bad in an important and intellectual profession like journalism? The Federation of Working Journalists, of which M. Chalapathi Rau of the National Herald (Luckuow) is the President, has not made itself felt. It is now in its infancy, and has yet to gain influence and power. It must strive for the establishment of conventions which will provide greater security of tenure, more leisure and comfort, and a psychological atmosphere in which talented men can give of their best. It almost looks as if working journalists can plead any cause except their own!

Honouring Sri Masti

Our cultural life has its lights as well as its shadows. And among its recent high-lights are the celebrations in honour of Sri K. S. Venkataramani at Madras under the presidentship of Sri P. V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice of Madras, and of Sri Masti Venkatesa Iyengar at Bangalore under the presidentship of Sri Navaratna Rama Rao. The completion of sixty years is a landmark in the life of any individual; in the case of a distinguished literary figure, the people rejoice and pay their homage.

I was privileged to be present in Bangalore and to convey greetings to Sri Masti on behalf of Andhra and of Triveni. For over twenty years, Sri Masti has been intimately associated with this journal. English renderings of several of his short stories. verse-tales, poems and plays have been published in Triveni for the first time, and lovers of literature have always been delighted to read them. From 1942 to 1948 Triveni was published in Bangalore under Sri Masti’s protecting care. To me, personally, he has been an elder brother, guiding me through life’s intricate paths. He has taught me to love the Lord and to submit without hesitation to His will. Late in life, I learnt Kannada in order to read Masti in the original and to follow his conversation. And this has brought me joy in abundance.

Sri Masti shares with Sri D. V. Gundappa and the late Prof. B. M. Srikantia the honour of heralding the literary renaissance in Karnataka. This group of friends made writing in Kannada fashionable in an era in which the most brilliant products of Indian Universities paid scant attention to literature in the Indian languages. They were among the stalwarts of the Kannada Sahitya Parishat, acting one after another as its Vice-Presidents. They set up high standards of literary taste and achievement and exerted a beneficent influence on the younger intellectuals like Prof. V. Sitaramiah and Prof, T. N. Srikantaiya. Between Sri Masti and the writers in Kannada belonging to all parts of Karnataka, there is a bond of intense affection. In this way a literary tradition has been fostered, of which modern Karnatak is proud.

Sri Masti missed a Ministership, but he is enthroned in the hearts of his grateful countrymen.

* August 20.

Back