அண்ணாவின் ஆங்கிலப் பேச்சு
“Carry on! But Remember. . .!!”
Anna’s Rajya Sabha Speech
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)
Madam Deputy Chairman, it is perhaps a painful paradox that we are today discussing about an amendment of the Constitution ot give to the governement as new legal weapon to put down not an antagonist but a protagonist of a cause and that too immediately after expressing our desire and willingness to meet the Chienese aggressor round a table for negotiationj. I have been hearing with more than extraordinary interest to the very many remarks made from both sides of the House. Let me, at the outset, as a sponsor of the idea which you seek now to put down by legal repression, give an analysis of the demand and its history not, of course, to reiterate my point of view but just a dispel demand. ne Hon.Member was saying that the demand for Dravidastan was based or immediately followed after what Phizo demanded. Truth is very far from it. Another member has stated here that such fissiparous temdencies arose after the advent of independence. That is coming very near the truth but not the truth itself. The DMK is an offshoot of the DK. The DK has been in existence long before independence and which there were sranglings, problems and policies as to the future political set-up. the DK, in which I was at that time acting as the General Secretary presented a political formula for the South. It is only as a corollary to that, that the DMK which is an offshoot of the DK is enunciating that principle. therefore, this has nothing to do with the acts of commission or omission of the ruling part. It was nothting to do with similar or more ferocious demands in any other part of the country. I would request members of this House to at least analyse the problem before they pounce upon the problem itself.
Secondly, I want to point out that so soon after expressing our willingness to meet round the conference table an aggressor should you not try, as member of this great nation, to understand us before you try to ban the very propaganda itself? Are we so debased that we should br treated as untouchables in the political arena? Is not our demand so serious that you should try to convince us, convert the people? Are we not amenable to reason? Have you attempted that? That is my humble submission to this House. Irrespective of party affiliations I am requesting every one of the Members of this House to bestow their very best thought over this aspect, whether we have been consulted, whether the ruling party has taken some trouble to analyse our problem. I am mentioning the word ‘ruling party’ because most of the opposition parties have tried to analyse it. This morning one Ho.Member was saying that the Communist Party was allied with us in this. To the honour of the communist Party I may say this that when we approached them that they should accept our principle they had the guts to say that they would not. But electroral alliances or electoral adjustments have got nothing to do with ideologies and therefore when we approached the Communist party and other parties we were not acting in accordance with ideologies but only with a view to getting political alliances. It may be of interest to know to this House that even now this very day the Madras Congress and the D.M.K. in Madras have come to an agreement over the Mayoral election. Therefore political adjustment is one thing, electoral alliance is entirely another thing and ideology is different.
Then the Congress itself must be supporting disintegration.
That is why I am pointing out that an electoral alliance does not mean surrendering of one’s ideology. The Madras Congress is strong enough to uphold its ideology and the Chief Minister of Madras is very strong in his conviction about the Congress ideology. I do not want the Chief Minister of Madrass or the Madras Congress to be misconstrued in our debates. I am saying this just to point out that there can be electoral alliances without surrendering one’s ideology. But I am pleading for an understanding of the ideology; I am pleading for an analysis for a probe into that ideology.
Now this Bill is brought forward to safeguard and maintain the sovereignty and integrity of India. What the danger is to that souvereignty, I do not know and I have not been told. Perhaps the Law Minister - I am sure that he is engaged in drafting a new law and theat is why he is not to be found in the House - if he were here would turn round and say: Know you not that there are fissiparous tendencies in this country? Know you not that he have constituted a National Integration Committee for this very purpose? Know you not that we are acting in strict accordance with the suggestions of the National Integration Committee? I am perfectly aware of teh constitution, Madam Deputy Chairman of the National Integration Committee under the able leadership of Dr.C.P.Ramaswami Ayyar, a sturdy champion of India’s sovereignty and integrity, so sturdy indeed that as Dewan of Travancore he announced the independence of Tranvancore and proclaimed a Pact with Pakistan. Today fortunately for the Congress he is a non-aligned power and you have taken him as the Chairman of the Committee. Let me request Members of this HOuse to analyse how this Committee functions. It was charged witha mission to find out how best to attain national integration, not merely to put down propaganda for secession. It was given the mission to find out how best to forge national integration. What are its constructive suggestions? What are its constructive proposals barring the penal provison that they want to get from out of the National Integration Committee’s deliberations? The National integration Committee, Madam Deputy Chairman, touned all over India and had the coutest of course to go to our Sate. It interviewed men of various political persuasions but were not able to meet members of the D.M.K. because by that time the State Government of Madras had assigned to us appartments in the Vellore Central Jail. That is the reason adduced by the National Integration Committee for not meeting us. But at that time if the National Integration Committee was interested in knowing our point of view, if they had wanted to have contact with us, the Organising Secretary of our party, Mr.N.V.Natarajan was outside the Jail, Mr.Manoharan, M.P. was outside; Mr. Raja Ram was outside. They could mean that Dr.C.P.Ramaswamy Ayyar should come to the jail to meet us. He has had experience of putting others in jail and not himself going to meet us. We are very small men. I do not want such a show of generosity from a Committee manned by such stalwarts but they could have taken the trouble to get into contact with some people who were outside. Did they take that trouble? I would request every member of this HOuse to forget for a moment the dangerous consequences but please answer me. I need no words; a slight smile, a happy twinkle, a friendly nod is enough. It is not connon courtesy and democratic decency that the Committee should have not into contact with the members of our party? Not, they did not do that. Hut they have given a statement and in the Statement Objects and Resaons of the present Bill it is said that they are strictly following what the National Integration Committee has suggested. Therefore the genesis of the Bill is most undemocratic. It is to bring home that point of view that I have taken this trouble of taxing your patience.
Now, I will come to another point. The demand for Dravidastan has been erroneously said to be dangeroous and many of the leading lights of the ruling party have been saying even months ago or weeks ago that they do not understand what we demand. They do not understand and yet they understand this that it is a potential danger. How it is rational or logical or even political, I do notunderstand. It was in this House or in the other House - I do not exactly remembre - that the Home Minister was saying some months ago that all propaganda for secession will be put down when it goes out of bounds, when its dimension grows to a certain extent. Nobody sought any clarification because it was thought that any propaganda for secession will be put down if it leads to any over act, it leads to crossing the bounds of legality. That was stated by the Home Minister some months ago. what has happened in the intervening period? Have we become skull-hunters or head hunters? Did we indulge in any extra legal activities? No. On the otehr hand, as soon as the Chienes aggression took place we offered our unstinted and spontaneous co-operation to the war effor. I am very glad now that the Law Minister is not there.
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)
Continued . . .