‘TRIVENI’
HAS SHED LIGHT ON MY PATH.
BLESSED BE HER NAME!
‘THE
TRIPLE STREAM’ l
Among
the makers of modern India, Lokamanya Tilak takes a very high rank. Scholar,
patriot and fighter for freedom, he gave of his best to the causes he held
dear. Naoroji and Mehta were his seniors in the public life of Bombay, and
Gokhale his contemporary. They all set up standards of conduct which won for
Bombay its primacy in the political life of India. They were the builders of
the Congress organisation and sought to make it the spearhead of an unofficial
opposition in the legislatures and outside. To them, as to many others of that
era, the association of Britain and India was ‘providential’ and fraught with
important consequences to both countries. If there was an element of tutelage
in that relationship, an effort was to be made to convert that tutelage into a
friendly association which would ‘in the fulness of time’ lead to some form of
colonial self-government. The people were not yet aware of their rights, and
Indian politicians wedded to the Gokhale tradition relied on the support of the
higher intelligentsia–the University men, engaged in the professions of law,
medicine and journalism, and of the business magnates who paved the way to
industrialisation in the teeth of vested British interests.
Tilak
and his associates from all parts of India broke away from that tradition. They
attempted for the first time to awaken the middle classes and the ‘common’ men
to a sense of their grievances under foreign rule. And, what was more
important, they felt that they were under no obligation to confine themselves
to legal and constitutional methods for achieving their ends. That law and that
constitution were laid down by a foreign power, which could alter them at its
will. If political progress was to be made, it might become necessary to
transgress the law. From the emergence of this new school of thought in Indian
politics in 1906 to the advent of Gandhiji in 1920, Indian
public life was divided into two opposing camps,–the moderates and the
extremists. Both wanted Swaraj, and neither favoured violence. But they
differed in temperament and outlook.
With
the coming of Gandhiji there was a new alignment, and the overwhelming power of
public opinion was ranged on the side of the struggle for freedom through
non-violent non-co-operation and civil disobedience. The
people made notable sacrifices and passed through travail and agony. For the
first time in history, a great nation won its liberty without
resort to arms. To lovers of freedom, the memory of Gokhale, Tilak and Gandhi
will always be precious. In diverse ways, they were the architects of Free
India.
Tilak
was conscious of the part played in Indian history by the builders of the
Mahratta Empire. Shivaji, and after him, the Peshwas, were men of action,
inspired by idealism. So Tilak became an exponent of the philosophy of action,
and, in his commentary on the Gita, the Lokamanya upheld the ideal of right
action–action without attachment to the fruits–as envisaged by Sri Krishna.
Wisdom and Devotion were important, but they must result in activity in the
world of men. This man of action was himself a seer and a prophet. His vision
was clear, and during the many crises of his life, he never wavered for a
moment about the course to be pursued. Called to leadership during a period of
turmoil, he displayed all the qualities which one associates with the heroes of
nations. The greatest of these qualities was the absence of any vestige of
personal ambition. A grateful nation paid its homage to the memory of the
Lokamanya to mark the centenary of his birth. May that nation be worthy of him!
With
the assent of the President the States Re-organisation Bill has become the law
of the land. On the 1st of November the new States will begin to function, and
negotiations are already in progress for the constitution of interim
Ministries. After the general elections in February 1957, and about the
beginning of April, a completely new picture of the re-organised States will
emerge. The working of the Second Five-Year Plan and the normal five-year
activity of the Union and State Governments will thus be simultaneous. One
looks forward with hope to the new chapter
in India’s history.
The
Bill underwent few changes in its passage through the two Houses of Parliament.
A last-minute agreement on an enlarged bi-lingual
State of Bombay was precipitated by the resignation of the Finance Minister,
Sri Deshmukh. Bi-lingual Bombay without Vidarbha; three separate
States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bombay City; two States on a uni-lingual
basis with Bombay City Centrally administered,–these were the various solutions
discussed from time to time, and rejected in the end in response to popular sentiment
in one or the other of the areas affected. The final agreement on bi-lingual
Bombay was acceptable to the leaders of Maharashtra and Gujarat, and had the
approval of an overwhelming majority in Parliament. But certain influential
sections of public opinion in Gujarat, notably the students and the
industrialists, made common cause with the Opposition parties, including the
Communists and the Socialists, and led an agitation in favour of Maha-Gujarat
with Ahmedabad as its Capital. Events took an ugly turn and all the resources
of the State had to be employed to restore peaceful conditions. Even the
presence of Sri Morarji Desai on the scene failed to win over the discontented
sections. This led to an eight-day fast by Sri Desai, during which two top-ranking
leaders like the Congress President and Sri S. K. Patil negotiated with the
agitators and secured a none-too-peaceful hearing for the Chief Minister.
Things seem, to be quieting down, but it is worth while analysing the problem
from the point of view of those who led this agitation against the declared
decisions of Parliament.
Right
from the early stages of the movement for linguistic States, the Maharashtrians
and the Gujaratis put forward their claims to recognition as separate entities.
There never was a serious proposal from either to keep them together in a
bi-lingual State while the rest of the Indian Union was being carved into
uni-lingual States. The only point on which opinion was divided was the future
of Bombay City. The Maharashtrians have all along claimed it as an integral
part of Maharashtra and as the natural Capital of their newly integrated State
which included Vidarbha and Marathwada. Any solution which cut the City away
from Maharashtra was, to them, unthinkable. The Gujaratis on the other hand
were opposed to the inclusion of the City in a uni-lingual State of
Maharashtra. They felt they were entitled to share the City with the
Maharashtrians; they pleaded for its constitution into a separate territorial
unit, either as a City State or as a Centrally administered area. They would
not accept the solution sponsored at one stage by the Maharashtra Congress
Committee favouring a bi-lingual Bombay State with Bombay City as its Capital,
because the resolution of the Maharashtra Congress Committee carried a sting
with it–that, at the end of five years, the Gujaratis could
opt out of the bi-lingual State and form their own State of Maha-Gujarat leaving
Bombay City to Maharashtra. The final solution incorporated in the Bill
does not include this offending clause, but it nevertheless cuts at the root of
the Gujarati claim for a separate State of Maha-Gujarat. They were certain of
the fulfillment of their wishes in this regard, so that the decision to form a
bi-lingual State came as a rude shock to them. They were denied a separate
State and they were to be citizens of a bi-lingual State in which they would be
in a minority of 1 to 3. The Opposition parties took advantage of this
prevailing discontent, and fanned the flames of disorder.
From
the point of view of national solidarity and the softening of linguistic
animosities, the formation of bi-lingual Bombay with all the Maharashtrian and
Gujarati areas is an event which augurs well. The State belongs to both, as
does the City which both hold dear. The events and the controversies of the
recent past may leave a trail of bitterness. But, with mutual goodwill and
understanding, and under the leadership of far-seeing statesmen like Sri
Morarji Desai and Sri Shankar Rao Deo, the new State may establish healthy
conventions for the solution of conflicting claims in the spheres of
administration, trade and industry, language and culture. At the end of five or
ten years similar States in the East and the South may emerge.
Language and the rivalries arising from it will cease to be of much
consequence. Linguistic minorities throughout the Indian
Union will realise that their interests are safe in the hands of the majority
in every State.
The
Home Minister, Pandit Pant, was unwilling to concede the demand of some members
of Parliament for a Boundary Commission to settle all disputes between
neighbouring States. He preferred to leave the matter to the new Zonal
Councils, though he did not rule out the possibility of the creation of a
Commission or Commissions at a later stage, if the Government of India saw the
need. But the Zonal Councils or Boundary Commissions must have well-understood
formulas, applicable on an all-India basis, to guide them. This point has been
urged by the Government of Andhra. Soon after the States settle down to their
task of national development, the problem of the border areas has to be
tackled. Instead of allowing the piecemeal and haphazard treatment envisaged by
the Home Minister, the Union Government, in, consultation with the Chief
Ministers of the States, can formulate a uniform policy for future
implementation. This will restore harmony between neighbouring States and
promote the ideal of a common nationhood transcending regional loyalties.
The
refusal of Britain and the U. S. A. to finance the construction of the Aswan
Dam over the Nile has led to serious international complications. President
Nasser of Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal Company and assumed complete
control over all operations in the area. This was a challenge to Britain and
France which are vitally interested in the maintenance of the Canal as an
‘international waterway’ open to the free passage of the vessels of all nations
in war as well as in peace. Britain retaliated by freezing all Egyptian assets
in British banks and by taking steps, military and otherwise, for the
protection of her interests. The world seemed to be rushing into war, but
America, as usual, intervened to prevent a sudden outbreak. The London
Conference of 22 nations could not arrive at unanimous decisions, but the
Dulles formula, sponsored by the Western powers, won the support of 18 nations.
This seeks to impose international control over the Canal while formally
recognising Egypt’s sovereignty over the area covered by the Canal. Egypt,
which was an invitee to the Conference, declined to attend; a watching brief
was however held by President Nasser’s Chief Political Officer, Aly Sabry. The
Indian proposal for an Advisory Body under the aegis of the United Nations
Organisation did not find favour with the majority of the States at the
Conference.
The
general impression seems to be that the Menon formula has a chance of being
accepted by Nasser as the basis of negotiations, while the one to be presented
to him at Cairo on the 3rd of September by Mr. Menzies, head of the five-nation
delegation, may be rejected altogether. At one time it was doubtful if
President Nasser would at all agree to receive the Menzies delegation, but,
thanks to Sri Krishna Menon and other diplomats who are anxious to find a
peaceful solution, the Egyptian leader will discuss the position and state his
views. Meanwhile Britain is going ahead with her military preparations, to meet
all eventualities, and French troops are being massed in Cyprus.
The Security Council of the U. N. O. was the proper forum for the discussion of the momentous issues involved in this controversy between Egypt and the Western powers. But the latter did not wish that valuable time should be lost in the process of making a reference to that body. And they were nervous about the veto of Russia. The London Conference has had beneficial results, inasmuch as it has created conditions favourable for negotiations. Much depends on the spirit in which the Cairo talks are conducted. Resurgent nationalism in Africa and Asia is 10th to bend to the might of the West. India, under the leadership of Nehru, can always be counted upon to pull its weight on the side of peace and goodwill. Immediately after his return home, Sri Menon made it clear that India was not keen on pressing forward with any formula of her own. She would be ready to help all parties to arrive at a settlement. The prime factor in the situation is the assertion by Egypt of her sovereign rights over the Suez. Subject to those rights she is prepared to guarantee the safe passage of all vessels and the maintenance of the present level of tolls. She is further prepared to register such guarantees with the U. N. O. and accept the advice of any international body which owes its existence to the U.N.O.
War
must be avoided, and the next few weeks are likely to witness a return to
normal conditions. Whether Egypt will insist on summoning another Conference
remains to be seen. What Egypt seeks to avoid is a repetition of old history
involving the presence of foreign troops in the Suez. Short of this, she will
make all concessions to conciliate international opinion.
l
August 31