அறிஞர் அண்ணாவின் கட்டுரைகள்

“MIMANG”

The ‘Living God’ at present, ‘installed’ at the palatial buildings owned by the Merchant-prince, Birla received kind ‘offerings’ from the daring democrat, Pandit Nehru. Statesmen have applauded the timely action of Pandit Nehru, and p`oliticians here and elsewhere are arguing the pros and cons of the problem that has sprung up. With minimum cost, one could say, Pandit Nehru has earned a rich dividend. Those countries that are clubbed together as ‘democratic’ as opposed to the ‘totalitarian’ have come forward to praise Pandit Nehru, for this bold step. Some of those countries were having a sort of suspicion in their minds – and they had good reason for the same. For, from the time of the Bandung Conference and the promulgation of the Five Principles an impression gained ground, that the slogan ‘Hindi-Chini- Bhai- Bhai’ has become a solid poltical arrangement. And the ‘western powers’ who naturally were not happy at the growing strength of Red China, were scared almost by this ‘Bhai-Bhai! They were all along planning to maintain and strengthen Nehru’s India, as a check and challenge to Red China and for a time, Nehru himself was tempted to toy with the idea of an Asian Leadership. And so, when they witnessed the spectacle of Red China and Nehru’s India ‘arm-in-arm’, they were naturally dismayed. But recent events have dispelled that fear and suspicion; and Pandit Nehru is now the recipient of encomiums from many a land. He has now become the ‘focusing point’ – the one tall leader who has come forward to champion the causes of justice, democracy, nationalism. Pandit Nehru has become overnight a ‘defender of divinity’ as well as democracy as it were – for in granting ‘protection’ to the fleeing ‘God-on-earth’ Nehru has proclaimed his intention of blocking the onward march of tatalitarianism.

Of course Pandit Nehru could not take sides, as far as politics is concerned – and this attitude he has ably maintained though reports, statements and Radio news from Peking are of an irritating kind. Pandit Nehru refuses to succumb to provocation and is maintaining a poise which is admirable.

But while he is maintaining ‘statesmanship’, there are around him, many, for whom this appears to be the most opportune time for having their ‘dig’ at anything ‘Red’.

The ‘Reds’ here, so, have to come forward with their cudgels – and unfortunately they depend too much on what is being supplied through ‘air’ from Peking.

The real crux of the problem is thus being either missed or marred.

Because of the ‘battle-cries’ raised by these two warring camps, one section of the public are led to think, that Red China intends to swallow up Tibet, and from there it would pounce upon the Indian Territory too, in due course – and another section of the public are led to think that ‘foreigners’ have cunningly manoeuvred that whole affair, and they have cooked up revolt against the people and democratic forces in Tibet, to safeguard vested interests and the upper strata in society – in short, a sort of counter-revolution. Hints and even open statements are made, to the effect that ‘Indians in Kalimpong’ had had a hand in this move.

Amidst this din of noise, the real crux of the problem is being forgetten. And whatever might be the solution already chalked out by Nehru, until and unless, the crux of the problem is understood and appreciated, one could not draw the lesson that the events give.

To be frank, even at the risk of being misunderstood and hence vilified – we should like to know what is it that Pandit Nehru wants to defend? And what are the reasons that he could possibly advance for his stand?

Is Pandit Nehru interested in safeguarding the territorial integrity of Tibet, or the Ddivine Right of the Dalai Lama?

Is Pandit Nehru interested in maintaining the ‘Tibetean way of life’ – if so, what is it that is attractive in that?

And is it ‘politic’ to expect China having assumed (and having been assured also) suzerainty over Tibet, to allow that region to present a system and society not only entirely different from what is to be found in China, but also diametrically opposed to the very theories upon which Red China has been built up?
If Tibet is to have a ‘way of life’ entirely its own, it should become a Separate Sovereign State – and not a region in Red China.

China refuses to accept this – and most of her allies, including Nehru have assured China, that Tibet is part of China.

Tibet cannot say that, she is being exploited by China, through a ‘Colonial system’. In fact, the Chinese could point out with pride, some of their achievements. They have attempted to ‘modernise’ Tibet, and perhaps, they would even industrialise her, by and by.

Road-building, schools, hospitals, workshops and such other benefits conferred can be cited. Tibet has not been ‘reduced’ to serfdom – her natural resources have not been exploited. China is so vast and so rich that she has absolutely no need to grab a piece of land on the ‘Roof of the World’.

How is it, that a feeling of aversion arises? Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Though the reforms introduced by China, are according to modern standards, beneficial to the people of Tibet, and though China is careful enough to do this in a partonising way, the people not only in Tibet but democrats elsewhere also, find in this an attempt to annihilate something distinctly Tibetan.

It was exactly this feeling of repulsion that was the reason for the liberation movement started in Tibet. They call it as Mimang – and the present uprising is the direct outcome of this Mimang. Pandit Nehru, by taking the Dalai Lama under his protective wings, has accepted by implication this Mimang. He has accepted the fact, that Tibetans are of a distinct nationality, with a way of life all their own. He has accepted that a suzerain power has no right to annihilate this ‘nationalism’.

Tibet, compared to China, is a small belt. She cannot stand comparison to China, in any field of activity and yet, she wants a separate, sovereign existence – and Pandit Nehru, though he does not proclaim this in so many words, has accepted this right.

He could thus be called as the ‘defender of the small nation’ and his role is being held in high esteem.

But, it is the same democrat, the defender of the small nation, that is up against the demand for a Dravida Nad! Why?

(Editorial - 24-04-1959)