‘The Triple Stream’ ¹

BY K. RAMAKOTISWARA RAU

MOUNTBATTEN LEAVES

GENUINE regret was expressed by leading Indians, in or out of politics, at the departure of Lord Louis Mountbatten after laying down the high office of Governor-General of free India. During his term of office, India passed through cataclysmic changes unequalled since the first fight for Independence in 1857. This scion of a medieval German feudal house, kinsman of the King of England, and an Admiral by profession, played, a distinguished role in effecting the transfer of power from British to Indian hands. Faced with problems of great magnitude and complexity, he brought to bear on them a detached outlook and a will to get things done without undue loss of time.

To blame him for the partition of India, as several have done, is hardly fair to one whose tremendous sincerity is as patent as his power of initiative. That partition was inevitable became clear to the Congress chiefs soon after Lord Wavell admitted Muslim-Leaguers into the interim Government by the back door as it were, and confronted the country with a virtual choice between civil war and partition. There was Pakistan in action in the Central Cabinet at New Delhi; all governmental activity was paralysed by the cleavage between the League and non-League elements; all problems of national reconstruction had to be shelved till this perpetual deadlock was resolved. The only question before the Congress section of the Cabinet and the Congress High Command was as to the extent of territory and population that could be salvaged at the last moment. And they were content to salvage the whole of Assam, West Bengal with the city of Calcutta, and Eastern Punjab. Mountbatten did not create the situation; his predecessor had done it with the backing of the reactionary elements in British politics. Mountbatten’s quick eye seized the fundamentals of the situation, and he evolved a formula not wholly acceptable to either party, but which both were prepared to accept as an alternative to domestic commotion. To charge Mountbatten with having hustled the parties and forced the pace of events is to miss the meaning of the various factors in a quickly changing scene. It is very brave of people to proclaim that even civil war was preferable to partition, and that bloodshed and distress were not, in fact, avoided by the partition. The truth is that while civil war was certainty, it was not so clear–nay, it could not be imagined–that in the wake of partition streams of blood would flow and vast masses of humanity uprooted from hearth and home. Even Gandhiji, whose opposition to any scheme of partition was pronounced, gave way towards the end, and advised acceptance of the Mountbatten settlement.

All this might look like a post-mortem examination, but a dispassionate survey of events in retrospect is the only way of arriving at a correct judgment, when a British statesman of the front rank, who sought to befriend India, is accused of having forced a partition of India and brought on us the many disasters that followed the partition. That Mountbatten led Nehru into making a reference to the U.N.O. on the Kashmir issue, or that he deliberately prolonged the negotiations with Hyderabad, might form the subject of cheap gibes, but those indulging in them forget that Nehru and Patel who hold all power in their hands are not likely to have been wheedled into courses of action contrary to their judgment. Such allegations are not complimentary to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of India, nor do they indicate a correct appraisal of the constitutional position of a governor-general of India after the 15th of August 1947. In any event, no final judgment is possible until more light is thrown on what happened behind the scenes.

The last of the British Viceroys of India was transformed into the first of the constitutional, titular Heads of the Indian Union. He won the affection and regard of the top-ranking leaders of India, including Gandhiji. And he ended with a flourish a long long chapter of Indo-British relations.

HIS SUCCESSOR

His Excellency Sri C. Rajagopalachariar, Lord Mountbatten’s successor in the Governor-Generalship of the Indian Union, has to face the problems of Hyderabad and Kashmir and solve them in collaboration with the Cabinet. During the hectic days when Mir Laik Ali kept flying between Hyderabad and Delhi, there were persistent rumors that Lord Mountbatten was anxious to round off his career in India by arriving at a settlement with the Nizam. But the Nizam, it was said, was playing for time; he hoped that C. R. would use his influence to secure better terms for His Exalted Highness! Both Razvi and the Nizam have complimented the new governor-general on his love of peace and justice, hoping obviously to improve the prospects of an ‘independent’ Hyderabad, free to pursue its mad career of autocracy and oppression of the vast majority of the citizens. But the Nizam who ignored the friendly admonition of Mountbatten, even at the eleventh hour, is not likely to find favour in the eyes of his successor. The blunt truth is that further negotiations between Hyderabad and India are ruled out. Very soon, the Nizam will find that he has no friends left in Delhi or London. Mr. Jinnah is certainly a factor to be considered, but he will help the Nizam not with men and arms but with thundering statements, which can cow down nobody. Meanwhile, the economic blockade of Hyderabad is being intensified, and we may be sure that the Government of India will not hesitate to take further drastic steps, including military action, to maintain peace and orderly administration in the Deccan.

Equally pressing is the situation created by the visit of the U.N.O. Commission on Kashmir. India refused to accept the terms of the revolution of the Security Council, particularly those relating to the curtailment of Sheik Abdullah’s powers and the conditions under which a plebiscite should be held. The U.N.O. has not called upon Pakistan to withdraw its support to the raiders, though the Council tacitly admitted that such help was being rendered. Thus the primary objective of the Government of India in making the reference was not secured, while irrelevant issues gained prominence. India is under no obligation to co-operate with the Commission when the latter seeks to implement a resolution which India has not accepted. The preliminary meeting at New Delhi will reveal the shape of events.

In Kashmir, as in Hyderabad, India can decide to take action in accordance with her considered view of the situation. She need not be deflected from her resolve to treat Kashmir as a State that acceded to the Indian Union. A plebiscite has always been kept in view; but no plebiscite can be held till the last of the raiders has been driven out and Pakistan’s complicity in the unofficial invasion of Kashmir is proclaimed and atoned for. C. R.’s statesmanship will be judged by the way he handles the Kashmir and Hyderabad issues. That will be his first great achievement at New Delhi. A skilful negotiator, he is also known to take swift decisions. In the course of the fateful talks between Gandhiji and Mr. Jinnah at Bombay, it was he who finally prevailed upon Gandhiji to break off the negotiations. He, like all Gandhians, prefers the path of peace. But he is not enamoured of peace at any price. C.R., Nehru, and Patel form the Indian Triumvirate in India’s hour of destiny. They may be trusted to guide India aright.

THE DRAR COMMISSION

A three-man Commission, assisted by representatives of different linguistic units, will go into the question of forming linguistic Provinces in Southern and Western India. According to the terms of reference, the Commission will also indicate, roughly, the boundaries of the new Provinces, leaving it to yet another Commission to demarcate them with greater precision. Evidence has to be presented to the Commission about the feasibility of the re-distribution of Provinces and the financial and other implications of such redistribution. But what is occupying the minds of some people is not the preparation of their own brief, but the method of forestalling other people’s claims to areas like the city of Madras. A minor crisis was precipitated the other day by the Education Minister’s naive declaration that the ‘regional’ language of the city was Tamil. His Andhra colleagues on the Cabinet raised a protest and one of them announced that the Education Minister had merely expressed his personal view and that the Cabinet was not bound by it. The Tamil Congress leaders have duly reiterated their undying faith that Madras City is the exclusive property of the Tamils, while Andhra Congressmen like Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya plead for its retention as a common, multi-lingual area with an independent administration. All these views can very properly be pressed before the Commission or Commissions dealing with the question. There is no need to create bad blood by premature wrangling. The Commission can only carve out Provinces; it is not setting up independent sovereign States. And wherever the lot of a citizen of the Indian Union may be cast, certain fundamental rights regarding language and culture will be assured to him.

As regards bi-lingual or multi-lingual cities like Delhi, Bombay, and Madras, Triveni has always held that they ought not to be included within any linguistic Province. The capitals of all linguistic Provinces should be in the heart of the respective areas–Madura or Trichinopoly in Tamilnad, Vijayawada or Masulipatam in Andhra, Poona in Maharashtra, and Ahmedabad in Gujerat. The distinctive culture and traditions of a people must grow at such centers, while the cities of Greater Bombay and Greater Madras will reflect the composite culture of the various groups which built up these cities during the last few centuries. Such groups can claim the city as their subsidiary homeland, away from the primary homelands which will emerge under the new Constitution of India.

TRAINING ART TEACHERS

The Government of India have planned to train teachers of art and artistic handicrafts at Santiniketan. The first batch, consisting of advanced students from all over India, is about to take the course under the general supervision of a master-artist like Sri Nandalal Bose. When Rabindranath Tagore started his institution, education in the fine arts was an integral part of his scheme; it was to be the richest expression of his dream of a renascent India. Several of the artists in the different Provinces and States of India are ‘old boys’ of the Kalabhavan in Santiniketan. They look back with joy to the days spent in those sylvan surroundings. The first National Government of India have done well in choosing that hallowed spot for inaugurating what promises to be a new era in Indian art. Provincial and State Governments which have deputed students for training will, it is hoped, start art-centers of their own in suitable places. Thus, from Santiniketan will ray out the message of art to the remotest corners of the land.

¹July 7.