 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
“Carry on! But Remember. . .!!” AN HON. MEMBER: MR. C.N.ANNADURAI: Law says, do not do this, do not to that. That is not as effective as the mighty influence that the Prime Minister exerts over the minds of millions irrespective of party affiliations. In his anxiety to uphold the law, I do not know why the Law Minister should minimize the influence that the Prime Minister exerts. He could have at least stated that the co-operative spirit today to be found in this country is due to the magnetic personality and the democratic liberalism of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. I do not know that happens inside the Cabinet. If the Law Minister’s statement were read by an outsider, what impression would that create? The country is calm because of the Defence of India Act. Otherwise, everyone will become so anti-national, anti-patriotic that there will be trouble. I would request the Law Minister to have proportions when he makes assertions. Apart from that, the Defence of India Act is not and cannot be the conscience – keeper of the nation. It can only be the jail-keeper of the nation. Therefore, if the D.M.K. has come forward to offer its unstinted support to the war effort, I do not expect a good conduct certificate from the Government for that. I do not want reciprocity. I am pointing this out to show whether you do not find a natural instinct, a spontaneous upsurge, coming up in our minds. Should you not allow this instinct to have a natural growth? And is this measure a sort of manure? It is a damper and an irritant. Why not allow this natural instinct and this spontaneous upsurge to have its full shape to have its full blossom, to have its full force? What is the urgency behind this measure? Why are you so hasty? That is the point. And to bring home that point I was pointing out our support to the war effort. As I said, we are very small men, but we happen to represent 3.4 million voters in our country as against the five million voters who made the Congress the ruling party in Madras. I hope I need not argue very much about the difference between five and three. I assure this House that if you do not put dampers on our progress, I assure this House that if you do not bring in legal repressions, we are the next ruling party in Madras. And the Central Cabinet Minister, the Hon.Mr.C.Subramaniam, issued almost an invitation in his Coimbatore speech. He said: Give up separation, I would welcome you to form a Minsiter. It is to such a Party that you are denying the common courtesy, the democratic decency, by not giving us an opportunity to place our point of view before the National Integration Committee or even taking us into confidence. The Leader of the Communist Party, my very esteemed friend Mr.Bhupesh Gupta, has been very kind enough to put forward suggestion. He said: Why not all the democratic forces and the nationalist forces unite together to counteract them? I welcome that. I would like to see whether the people accept my point of view or your point of view. Why should you run away from that chivalrous contest? I would even request Mr. Bhupesh Gupta to consider this aspect, whether it is not more politic to consider converting us before counteracting. MR. BHUPESH GUPTA: That is what I said. I will try. MR.C.N.ANNADURAI: I am very thankful to Mr.Bhupesh Gupta. Either his method of converting us is not effective or it has not been so intense as he desires. But I would request this House to suggest to the Government that a consultative committee be formed with members of all political parties to come and have discussions. Correct us if we are erroneous. Convince us if you have got solid facts. Convert us to your point of view. Instead of that you are compelling. Compulsion, especially through law – I need not say it in a House where are so many luminaries in the legal profession – is the worst form of argument. When there are two ideas contesting in the competitive market of public opinion, if we debar one idea, if you make one idea to get legal force behind it, you are shirking that contest. And what was the statement being issued by members of the Congress Party in our State right up to the Tiruchengode by election? They were saying and it was repeated in this House also, one Member, my friend, Mr.Bhupesh Gupta, stated that I am a solitary single figure, of course, with hungry looks. I do not think they are feeding me. He said that I am a solitary figure. Another member stated that we have no hold in Kerala, in Karnataka, in Andhra. I do not claim to have converted or even to have got hold of an appreciable dimension support in those sister sStates. I never claimed that. My only point is that when I am making this point it would be felt by those territories, by those linguistic States. I never claim that what I think is being thought at Waltair of Hyderabad or at Mysore or in Trivandrum. I never said that. As a matter of fact, I have not gone to these places. I have not addressed any meeting in Hyderabad. I have not gone to Mysore to speak. And why not you allow me to go there, why not you come along with me< I would even make a sporting offer. Let there be a Consultative Committee of all the parties and let us all tour the country to find out what the country needs. Convince me and then say that my demand is unthinkable. But do not bring in this measure and then say: What are you going to do with this measure? My friend, Mr.Bhupesh Gupta, was saying that we may go underground. Now, we always remain on the ground. We propose not to go underground. But surely the sullen discontent will go underground. MR.BHUPESH GUPTA: That is What I said. MR. C.N.ANNADURAI: The sullen discontent will go underground which cannot be countenance by any measure. Political philosophy has not yet formulated a measure to fight out hidden discontent in the minds of millions. And, therefore, by this measure you are driving discontent, sullen discontent, sincere discontent, under ground. There is another point that I want to make. How is it that you think that our demand endangers sovereignty< Before answering that we should be very clear about what we mean by sovereignty. What is it that we mean by sovereignty? The Preamble to the Constitution says that the political sovereignty rests with the people. The legal sovereignty is divided between the Federal Union and the constituent units. Why not you take it that our scheme is to make the States still more effective sovereign units? Why not you take it in that light? Why do you think that the moment we demand Dravidastan, we are cutting at the root of sovereignty? Sovereignty does not reside entirely in one particular place. We are having a Federal structure. That is why the framers of the Constitution wanted a Federal structure and not a unitary structure, because as many political philosophers have pointed out, India is so vast-in fact it has been described as a sub-continent-so vast, the mental health is so varied, the traditions are so different, the history is so varied, that there cannot be a steel frame unitary structure here. My complain is – and it has been endorsed by the P.S.P.Member, Mr.Gurupada Swamy and others, that the working of the Federal structure all these thirteen years has created a sense of frustration in the minds of the States. They feel-they may not side me-that the States are fast becoming dole-getting Corporations. They feel that they are relegated to the background and there is the very natural instinct in them that they should be given more power. When coupled with that there is the regional disparity and added to that there is the linguistic tangle, do you not think that it is very natural for men like us to feel disillusioned and that it is not very unnatural that we should think of separation? Well, come to us half-way and say: we go so for and no further. But when you say that, when you meet us half-way, give us proper answer to puzzles that are created not by us but by the working of the Constitution to the detriment of the States. Did not the West Bengal Government and the Union Government have to go before the Supreme Court the issue of the coal mines? The Law Minister happens to come from West Bengal. Are the Bengalees fully satisfied? Constitution-a lists are they are, they have to abide by the Supreme Court decision and if my friend, Mr. Bhypesh Gupta, were not of Communist persuasion, he would perhaps be the first to champion the cause of West Bengal. I bow my head to the national instinct of Bengalees.
Continued . . .
|
முகப்பு | இலக்கியம் | அரசியல் | வரலாறு | புகைப்படங்கள் | பேரவை | தொடர்புகொள்ள |
Website Designed by R.Sembian, Anna Peravai