The
words "Dravida Nadu" and "Separation"
were on the lips of practically all the legislators,
who participated in the debate on the Governor's address
in the Madras Assembly last week. This was the special
feature that characterised this session and we welcome
this development, for even those 'dyed-in-the-wool Nationalists'
who had considered it one of the five Great Sins to
mouth such phrases, were obliged to utter them. More
over, with the exception of two or three Congressmen
who let loose expressions of raw resentment and called
for stern steps to put down the Dravidian National Movement,
most others including Minister Subramaniam were most
conciliatory in their attitude and called for "co-operation"
or made fervent appeals to the D.M.K., to "changes
its policies." We consider this, only as an infallible
index to the growing popularity of our Movement—for,
those who had slighted it ere now, have come out openly,
if at least to express their reaction to us.
A somewhat strange note was sounded by Home Minister
Bhakthavatsalam. He instituted a simile after the fashion
of his erstwhile boss, C.R.—but not being an adept in
the art of employing figures of speech—failed so miserably
that even the Press could not make head or tail of his
fanciful notion. He said something about the people,
the D.M.K., and its policies and ended up by giving
the time-worn warning "Do not play with fire".
Whether the Minister compared the D.M.K., itself or
its policies to fire, and whether the warning was addressed
to the people or to the D.M.K., will be one of the unsolved
mysteries of this session. Two leading dailies of Madras—neither
very friendly to us—have reported the Minister's speech
differently! We shall therefore abandon the futile task
of understanding Mr. Bhakthavasalam's comparison aright
and content ourselves with meeting the general tenor
of the speech. The Home Minister attempted to formulate
a novel thesis that the D.M.K., ought to "function
as a Constitutional opposition" and choose "recognised
political and Parliamentary methods", thereby implying
that the path of the D.M.K., at present, is a different
one. We do not follow what the Minister means by this
homily, particularly as everyone, even slightly familiar
with D.M.K. politics knows full well that the D.M.K.,
stands for the utmost uprightness in conduct and peacefulness
in agitation. It is an old proverb "Repeat a lie
a thousand times and it will pass for truth." Lest
by oft repetition the slander which the interested Congressmen
in office have now begun to mouth, achieves any measure
of credibility, we hasten to traverse it.
The Minister has advised the D.M.K. to resort to "recognised"
methods. May we turn round and ask this champion of
constitutionality, how he defines his "recognised
methods." If we remember that the context of the
ministerial sermon was a reference to the Black Flag
Demonstration against the Prime Minister, we at once
perceive the wisdom behind the advice. Showing of black
flags according to Mr. Bhakthavatsalam's political perspicacity
amounts to "unconstitutional" or "unrecognised
agitation." If this be so, we are in the esteemable
company of thousands of democratic minded people all
over the world who have shown their disapproval of any
governmental action or ministerial conduct by staging
such demonstrations. Placards containing such slogans
as "Anthony Eden, Resign!" have been exhibited
in London on hundreds of occasions, and even as recently
as 1956 during the Suez Canal crisis. Downing Street
democrats did not grumble. Showing of black flags, we
maintain, is not only a constitutional form and a recognised
form of political agitation, but is one of the most
peaceful methods. We are willing to take lessons in
constitutional methods of agitation from renown democrats,
who, we are sure, will side us on this issue. But we
cannot so easily listen to the Lincolns in the Madras
Legislature, who have their own axes to grind in tendering
advice to the opposition.
In order to whittle down the new democratic dicta that
he laid down, Mr. Bhakthavatsalam went on to state that
"a black-flag demonstration will always tend to
develop on violent and it is only those who are prepared
for violence of all types that would come forward to
organise such demonstrations". Once again we are
compelled to seek elucidation from the Minister as to
where he gets his data from. How many black-flag demonstrations
organised by the D.M.K., or any other party, which had
been quietly permitted by the government, "degenerated
into an orgy or violence?" General conclusions
must be based on particular instances. This is a fundamental
rule of logic. Perhaps the minister learnt his Logic
where he learnt his Democracy and that is why he lays
down cock-eyed propositions for us and the public to
swallow. It is only the nervousness of the authorities
and the consequent hasty repressive actions that are
to blame, if anything untoward were to happen. No political
party wedded to non-violent means—and we claim to be
one, and are recognised by all fair-minded observers
to be one—will ever plan a demonstration with the hope
or expectation that it should lead to acts of mob violence.
The D.M.K., did not plan the January Sixth Demonstration
with any such evil motive. The Nagercoil Resolution,
as well as the statements of the party leaders, make
this amply clear—and the government knows it. Their
incompetence in handling the situation and the consequent
mess have shown the government in a very bad light and
the minister is apparently trying to shift the public's
accusing finger, if he can, from the Government to the
D.M.K. We have condemned in no uncertain terms the cowardly
acts of violence and in the beach meeting on Jan., 14th,
it was actually stated that it is the duty of all the
D.M.K. partymen to apprehend criminals red-handed and
turn them over to the Police. And yet the Minister and
his ilk chose to slander us—which only shows that they
deliberately prefer to castigate us as part of their
political game, rather than appreciate the truth.
We are reminded of the way in which Lord Linlithgow
and Mr. Gandhi wrote to each other in 1943. The Viceroy
wrote to the Congress leader that the latter "was
responsible for the sad campaign of violence and crime."
Mr. Gandhi indignantly wrote "Of course, I deplore
the happenings.... But have I not laid the blame for
them at the door of Government of India?...." Mr.
Gandhi further wrote "The Government it was that
goaded the people to the point of madness... The government's
violence was leonine... The arrests started the violence
and yet you (the Viceroy) blame me (Gandhi) for the
violence, though I have worked all my life for non-violence."
In spite of Mr. Gandhi's repeated reassurances that
he and his party neither planned nor intended nor anticipated
the mob's actions the Imperial Viceroy still tenaciously
held Mr. Gandhi—the apostle of non-violence—responsible.
Has Mr. Bhakthavatsalam forgotten all this history?
Either he must say the Viceroy was right, in order to
maintain his statements about the D.M.K., in which case
we keep company with Mr. Gandhi as victims of an unjust
accusation; or the minister must admit that his leader
was correct, in which case, he must unreservedly accept
our sincere statements and let the matter rest. We would
request the minister to take his choice!
Before they offer any more advice to us, as if they
were incarnations of Abe Lincoln or Daniel Webster,
let the legislators ponder over these words and reflect
on their past. Further, constitutional government is
not one way traffic, we crave leave to remind our good
friends on the seats of power. Lincoln did not carry
a lathi, when he spoke Democracy. With its dark record
of repression, it comes with ill grace from our government
to lecture to us on how to behave.
(Editorial
- 16-02-1958)