While
affirming our faith in the ballot box as a means of
attaining our political objective, we had written last
week with almost prophetic foresight that it is not
always the most desired, let alone desirable, candidate
that achieves success at the polls. We had said that
pelf often replaced patriotism as the critical criterion
and nefarious influences came into play at election
time. The Tuticorin bye-election has come to prove this
proviso to our general statement. The recent victory
of the Congress at Tuticorin has no particular political
importance— it did not act to allay the anxiety of a
tottering administration struggling with a precarious
majority (as in Devikulam), nor did it determine any
sharp issue specifically posed before the electorate
for its mandate. The Tuticorin by-election was an ordinary
and normal sequel to a vacancy caused by the death of
the member representing the area. The Congress party
has retained the seat. We make no attempt to deny or
detract from that victory—but it has been a Victory
Without Honour. A victory achieved at the cost of principles
or fairness, may be victory to those who value only
the Ends. As we had pointed out last week, Means matter
as much to the D.M.K. as Ends. The Congress has reached
such a state of decadence that ends matter most to it.
Its boss in this State is a past master in the art of
achieving his ends; he has also acquired a deftness
in dropping all ideals or principles in the process.
The D.M.K. may have lost the bye-election, but it has
re-established the fact that it will not stoop to dirty
devices or mean methods to win an election. Our hands
are clean, our conscience clear, and our eyes can look
anyone in the face; but we have been defeated. We ask
whether the Congress can say as much for itself. We
shall place a few of the factors that operated at Tuticorin
below, and we ask Congressmen to look at us boldly and
deny that they adopted base means to snatch success.
The D.M.K. can assert that it was defeated, but not
disgraced, for we held aloft our ideals to the very
end. The ruling party succeeded, but it lost something
very valuable in the bargain—its reputation (but of
course, this had been lost long ago!); we are proud
of our failure, for we have a clear conscience; the
Congress must be ashamed of its victory, for it stooped
very low to win.
When we say all this, we should not be taken as offering
excuses, whether valid or lame, to explain away the
result. On the other hand, we have no hesitation in
confessing that if one has ever to do what the Congress
did to win, we shall never win. We must first infuse
healthy democratic traditions and conventions among
the people, and make the Vote a political instrument
in the hands of an elector, and not a mere piece of
paper to be bartered away for various considerations.
When the ballot becomes so mature a democratic institution,
it acts as a true reflector of popular will; till then
it will be a hunting ground for hawkers of government.
The D.M.K. is rooted in Democracy, and it must resolve
to elevate the electorate from that condition in which
the ruling party prefers to keep it—a situation in which
Poverty persists (so that anything that finds a purchaser
will be sold) and in which Ignorance is established
(so that political ideas may not permeate the popular
mind). We cannot make the people prosperous, for we
do not run the State, and our valid suggestions for
the people's prosperity will not be accepted by the
ruling party for its own reasons. But we can at least
educate the people, so that a Political Conscience grows
and acts as an effective barrier against the blandishments
of the Congress at election time. Only when such a healthy
environment is created, can we meet the ruling party
with its vast resources of men and money and its opportunity
for abuse of powers of government, on an equal footing.
Bereft of its adventitious aids, the Congress is no
match for us. Armed with these facilities, it wages
an unequal battle, and its success can be likened to
that of a dwarf armed with an automatic pistol against
a giant with his feet and hands secured firmly!
What is that the Congress did? We do not lecture Law
but we mouth Morality. Let not any curious Congressman
therefore begin to think in terms of election petitions!
What the ruling party did to win the seat may be within
the law, or it may transgress its boundaries. Even in
the latter case, by constant training in that direction,
they may have done it so beautifully well so as to cover
up their tracks, and leave no traces behind for formally
proving the act. We therefore talk generally and on
a higher plane than merely seeking to invalidate the
election. The election may be legally perfectly valid,
and still it may be morally quite invalid. We here appeal
to Morality, not to Law, to establish our case. The
Congress adopted some methods—each of which we consider
highly improper and immoral—
Lavish expenditure of Money
Personal visits of Ministers
Abuse of governmental machinery
Appeal to Communal feelings
That each of the aforesaid four devices were in full
swing at Tuticorin during the past fortnight, cannot
be denied. That is has borne fruit is obvious; but such
victory, is degrading,
Money flowed like water. Facilities that money can buy
were patent. The opportunities that money can purchase
were evident. When so much cash is in circulation, not
all of it could have gone for fair expenditure. We are
putting it as mildly as we can, for Congressmen will
easily see what we hint at! "The crowds may come
to your meetings; but the votes will be in my favour"
has often been the burden of the Congress chief's song.
What else could he have meant, except that he knew how
to "buy" though not how to "get"
by propaganda. It is as well that we also face this
fact. It is only the Politically Conscious person that
attends political meetings. It is only he that is swayed
by political principles enunciated eloquently. But to
every one such politically "alive" individual,
there are three or four who are quite unconcerned with
political life—as the Tamil proverb says, "not
caring if Rama reigned or Ravana ruled". The Congress
does not bother any more about the former, for it now
knows that every patriot in the South spurns its rule,
and patriotism comes with political awakening. By concentrating
on the politically slumbering masses and dangling temptations
in front of their innocent and simple eyes, the ruling
party uses its financial resources to profit. We can
not, will not and do not do so. We place our policies
and programmes before the people, and where there is
political awareness, we succeed; where it is still to
develop, we fail. Every single vote cast anywhere in
favour of the D.M.K. is therefore a pledge and a dedication
to our ideals; every single vote that the Congress secures
is a confession of weakness and inability to resist
the lesser self. We can always get the votes of the
Congress, as time wears on and nationalism grows with
political education; but the Congress cannot hope to
buy away a single vote of ours.
The undesirability of Ministers in office, canvassing
for candidates has been emphasised more than once, and
by various authorities. Lastly we have the pronouncement
of the Election authority itself deprecating this practice.
And yet, Ministers camped at Tuticorin (it would be
interesting to investigate, on what pretext they came
there) and attended diligently to election work. It
is illegal in strict law, for a village munsif to work
for elections, as his official status, however humble
is supposed to be, an unhealthy influence on the free
choice of the electorate. But the law, with its characteristic
illogicality that Dean Swift spoke about, seems to allow
Ministers—the highest official influence possible—to
canvass. Even if sanctioned by law, this is surely shocking
to Morality. And no one who has seen the manner in which
Ministerial tours at election time are manipulated and
misused to further party purposes can gainsay the pernicious
effect which such a practice has. The chance of any
dispensation of official favour is undoubtedly far greater
and far more effective too, when Ministers go about
than when munsiffs do. Yet, the former are allowed to
brandish their office about at crucial times, and the
law is content to place a ban on the latter. In Tuticorin,
we had many instances of Ministers coming to persons
( who had earlier promised support to other parties)
and by sheer force not of personality or policy but
of power, swerving those persons away. Few can resist
the lure of official favour, and when Ministers start
going from house to house, soliciting votes with smiles,
and meaningful looks, the weak yeild. If this is not
interference with the free choice of an electroate,
what is? In this respect the example of the Kerala Ministers
who stepped not into Devikulam—though the election was
vital—was refreshing. But the Congress will not take
such lessons from others.
Abuse of Governmental power arises in two ways, both
of which were in evidence during the Tuticorin by-election.
The first is, to employ Governmental forces against
opposition workers, for example by taking into custody
some strenuous workers of the opposite camp at the psychological
moment, on some frivolous charge and keep them out of
action for a few days and then release them. This is
sheer abuse of power. But it goes on. If opposition
parties were to retaliate, they would be violating the
law. But the ruling party breaks the law really, but
by employing the law for the purpose! This both paralyses
the opposition's work to some extent and also terrorises
other workers. Another way in which Governmental power
is abused by the ruling party is to hatch schemes and
announce plans for improvement just at election time.
To give one example out of many, a whole village was
really "bribed" when the Ministers laid the
foundation stone for a bridge that the villagers had
been asking for many years. Perhaps the bridge may never
be built, and the whole thing might be an election stunt,
but nevertheless the abuse of Power had its desired
immediate effect, and that is what the Congress cares
for. This gives the ruling party an advantage, which
is also employed often and unfairly.
The Pandit and the President of the Congress have repeatedly
shouted against Communalism in the Congress. As the
Madras Chief Justice pointed out at a Symposium on Caste
abolition recently, the Communal feeling generally comes
up most during election time, and parties which resort
to that are to be blamed. Both the Congress and the
Communist parties had little compunction in kindling
the embers of caste feeling. The Congress candidate,
cleverly selected to secure a double advantage if possible,
made it a point to add his caste name to his real name;
he is generally not known by that nomeclature, being
a convert to Christianity. Still, he flaunted his caste—and
not without reason. What is to happen to Pandit Nehru's
protestations?
It was in spite of fighting against these odds that
the D.M.K. managed to record over 14,000 votes, as against
about 21,000 by the Congress. We have nothing to be
dejected about. But we are not to be complacent either.
We must see how we can fight against these evil forces
that are brought into action at election time. As our
victory lies in political awakening, we must spare no
effort to rouse the sleeping ones, and show to them
the rising sun of patriotic nationalism. Educating the
ignorant masses, and taking the lessons of politics
to their doorsteps and not expect all to attend our
meetings, would be a necessary and first step. We can
not outbid the Congress in money and indeed we have
no desire to do so. But we can make the money of the
Congress worthless by educating the people, not to sell
their rights for a glittering coin.
We have been asked about the votes polled by the Communists.
We do not desire to give any elaborate explanation.
But we may say this:—Even the votes secured by the Communists
were anti Congress votes—and the ruling party cannot
therefore boast of an absolute majority. Indeed if the
Reds were keen on infliciting a blow on the Congress,
they should have approached the D.M.K. (which secured
more votes than the C.P.I did during the general elections)
and offered to support our candidate. This, they did
not do. As long as they do not gloat over the Congress
victory, it is something! Besides, one cannot help recollecting
what the Kerala Congressmen said when the Devikulam
results were announced. They had their own theories
about the Red tactics at election hour. Some times even
Congresmen may be correct!
We must congratulate the voters who voted for the D.M.K.
without yielding to the forces of pelf or power but
wielding the banner of patriotism. We must give our
grateful hand to the numerous party workers at Tuticorin
who toiled day and night against much difficulty. We
must pat on their backs our party leaders who went to
Tuticorin to supervise the work, for they did a fine
job. We must thank the donors who gave us funds to met
the minimum expenditure and we say "Your coppers
and nickels are more valuable than the thousands which
the Congress got from the capitalists. Your contributions
helped us to work. Theirs helped to destroy democratic
traditons". We appeal to our party men and to our
sympathisers and well wishers to view the Tuticorin
result as a timely reminder to us that the devices which
the rulers will employ are not always above board or
in conformity with the high ideals of a democratic State.
We hold our Integrity in high esteem. The Congress has
fallen to win. We shall not stoop to conquer.
Let the Tuticorin result inspire us to work with greater
zeal and gusto. The window of political feeling must
be opened in every home so that the Sun of Dravidian
resurgence may be seen. The victory is ours.
(Editorial
- 03-08-1958)