அறிஞர் அண்ணா மாநிலங்களவையில் ஆற்றிய கன்னிப் பேச்சு

 

MAIDEN SPEECH OF ARIGNAR ANNA ON IN RAJYA SABHA

MOTION OF THANKS ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS—

 

SHRI C. N. ANNADURAI (Madras): Revered Chairman, I am extremely thankful to you for having given me this opportunity to associate myself with the observations made in this august assembly. Of course, I was a bit hesitant to take part in the discussions this session, because I thought that my method ought to be to listen and learn this session rather than talk and rake up controversies. But the very congenial atmosphere that I find in this august House has emboldened me to join the rich chorus of praise that has been showered upon the President of this great country. I join along with others in paying my tributes to the unstinted service of our President though he has got failing health, and when I pay a tribute to Babu Rajendra Prasad, the President, I do not claim to have been a camp-'follower of the President.

I do not have an identity with the ideolcgies which the political party to which he is wedded has got. I was admiring the very able effort of the President from a vast distance. Perhaps, that gives me strength as well as weakness, weakness in the sense that I cannot have the same amount of warmth that others who have worked along with him would have claimed, and strength in the fact that the amount of tribute that I pay to the President is not to be construed as a dutiful party man's tribute to another party man but of one who having seen from a distance the unstinted service of the President pays the tribute that is due to him. Therefore, Sir, while I express my respect, when I pay my tribute, to the hon. President, I have to couple it unfortunately with a senile of disappointment with the Address that he has favoured to deliver to us. As students of constitutional history know, it is only the Government that is speaking through the President and, therefore, any remark, bitter or otherwise, which is stated about the Address is not to be construed—and I am very confident it would not be construed—as anything against the President. But in spite of the President, the Government have failed to deliver the goods as it were. Therefore, Sir, Members on the opposite side have got certain sentiments to express about that.

I have had the benefit of having \ listened to a veritable disposition on planning by the Father of Planning, if I may call so, the hon. Mr. V. T. Krishnamachari. But on going through the President's Address, I find that it reads more like the prospectus of a company rather than a message of hope and ideals—prospectus of a company because that company today seems to be in need of more and more members^— prospectus of a Company because that Company has been found to be needy. Therefore, Sir, throughout the speeches from the ruling party on the Address and the Motion of Thanks, I found a sort of jubilation, a sort of elation on their part— "Oh, we have been elected by the people for three consecutive terms. Therefore, whatever we say is correct, whatever we do is correct and the smaller parties have no right to question our rights and our prerogatives." Sir, I may point out that after having got victory in the General Elections, any party has got the right to be jubilant. But may I, with your permission, point out to the ruling party that it is not very astounding for a wellorganised and well-funded party like the Congress to win the elections pitted as it is against opposition groups of varied interests and varied ideologies? May I point out, Sir, that the strength of the Congress does not lie in itself; the strength of the Congress lies in the weakness of the opposition parties? Therefore, instead of being jubilant over the victory, the ruling party should learn to be humble, magnanimous, liberal and democratic. Therefore, the very first thought, the very first sentiment that Members on this side were pleased to state was about the corrupt practices in elections. Sir, as the Members on this side spoke about the corrupt practices in the elections, the people of the ruling party rose up to ask whether it could be proved. Sir, may I point out that if we were able to lay our hands on proofs, we could have dragged them into courts of law rather than come to this august assembly to present our sentiments? It is not always easy for parties placed at a disadvantage to produce proofs. We lay more emphasis on the philosophic side rather than the legal side of the matter. Did we not see some time ago strictures from High Courts that the ruling party—though it may be legal on their part to take donations from industrial firms which is highly immoral—got their weapons from the armoury of Tatas and Birlas? They did not find it below their dignity even to go to the Mundhras for funds. Has the country forgotten wherefrom their election fuijd was built up? Is it on this basis that the ruling party is jubilant? Perhaps, the ruling party Members might say that corrupt practices can be found in other political parties too. But as the premier political party of this vast sub-continent, is it not the duty of the Congress to set high traditions? I am reminded, Sir, of the sayings of Sanskrit Pandits, "Yatha Raja Tatha Praja". Whatever traditions the Congress set, other political parties may follow. I conveniently use the word "may" because "may" imply "may not" also. Therefore, our first point is that this election was not fair and free and the people's will was not legitimately consulted. Therefore, if at least during the next elections the ruling party does not associate itself with the protagonists of free bonus, profiteers and permit-mongers, and as Mr. Ganga Sharan Sinha stated the other day, if Members of the ruling party and the Cabinet resign at least six months before the general elections, I challange, Sir, the ruling party to come back to power. Therefore, the first ingredient that the President wants in his Address is that we should build up high democratic traditions by dissociating ourselves from the . . .

SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY (Mysore): Is there any democratic precedent for this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: He is asking whether there is any democratic precedent for resigning six months earlier.

SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA (West Bengal): There is hardly any precedent, Sir, to interrupt a maiden speech.

SHRI C. N. ANNADURAI: Of course, Sir, this is my maiden speech. I am not bashful of interruptions therefore, I like them. The second point that I want to make on the President's Address is that I understand that three cardinal principles are being enunciated in the President's Address—democracy, socialism and nationalism. As far as democracy is concerned, unless we have got proportional representation coupled with a system of referendum initiated in a vast sub-continent like this, you cannot have any utility for democracy. It is, therefore, that I regret very much that the President in his Address has not given the shortcomings of democracy as it has been worked out for the past ten or fifteen years. Therefore, I would request this House to consider the matter, whether it is not necessary and expedient now at least to have a free thinking on the tenets of democracy.

About socialism, Sir, the other day I found in this House a new meaning given to socialism. When my hon. friend, Mr. Ramamurti was telling the House about the big industrial concerns, the Tata^ and Birlas, I found an hon. Member giving an amazing interpretation of shares and profits. He was pleased to say that though crores and crores of rupees are gathered as profit, it does not go to the coffers of the individual capitalist like the Tatas and Birlas, but it is being disbursed to the shareholders. Sir, if that is the economic interpretation, why do we have two sectors, public and private? If my hon. friend thinks that private is public, that private industries controlled by Tatas and Birlas are after all public, why make a differentiation between public and private? Sir, he was far off the mark when he said that these shares and profits were distributed and disbursed. Sir, we have had Committees which have gone into the question and they have stated that powerful industrial empires have been built up, monopolies have grown. I find that the Prime Minister of this country has stated that the question should be looked into. I understand that, a Committee is working and they are going to find out how and where the amount of wealth produced by the two Plans has gone. Therefore, Sir, instead of arguing that socialism is to be of a different kind, give it some other name; why drag in the name of socialism and give your own interpretation to socialism? Socialism is not mere welfare because socialism is something other than guaranteeing welfare. It works out to create equality. I am aware, according to Laski, that equality is not identity of treatment, but affording equal opportunities for all. But in this country of ours, can we say that equal opportunities have been given or is being given t0 all? What about the Sche duled Castes, what about the Back-ward Classes? Some time ago I read in the papers that there was a conference at Hyderabad of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes wherein the Prime Minister and hon. Mr. Jagjivan Ram were present, not to present a united front but to give varied opinions. The Prime Minister was said to have stated there that distinctions like Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes were not to be allowed hereafter and Mr. Jagjivan Ram, naturally enough, rose to say that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes need patronage because they have been driven to the last rung of the society. If two such stalwarts can hold different views and remain in the same party, is it any wonder, Sir, that there is difference in ideology between the ruling party and other parties? Therefore it is that I would say that the interpretation given to socialism and the implementation of socialism are not leading us towards socialism.

Here I have got to refer to what a great friend of India, an admirer of this Government, the Ambassador of the United States of America, but an economist, D*. Galbraith, nays about our socialism. He has called it "post-office socialism". Why is it that Prof. Galbraith calls it "post-office socialism"? That is because he says that public enterprises should be run to maximise revenues, that is to say, profits, in a developing countrv like India. He points out that both America and India do this. The idea is + hat the profits made should in turn be ploughed back into the unit, should be reinvested, and it should be used for the good of the people. Just now we have been hearing the observations of the hon. Member, Shri V. T. Krishna-machari. He was stating that in the public projects, whether they be irri-gational projects or power projects or industrial projects, the returns are not up to the mark. He says that the returns are not up to the mark and adequate. It is because of the difference in the interpretation of socialism that we are not getting enough returns. I would say that much money has been sunk in the public sector. But neither have the targets been reached nor are the returns commensurate with the efforts taken or the sonets sung about Sindri or Bhakra or other projects. Sir, I would hasten to state that I must not be misconstrued to mean that I am against planning or against the public sector. I am all for planning and all for the public sector, but if in the public sector the return is so meagre, if in the implementation of the public sector there is so much of wastage we have to see to it. There are rumours about corruption. I am not in a position to present facts and figures, but the rumour is wide-spread that there is corruption and maladministration and other evils connected with the public sector. Therefore, I feel that the President should have stated in his Address that in spite of having the vision of socialism, we are not moving towards that socialism. The third point which is a point that is very intimate so far as the party to which I have the honour to belong is concerned, is nationalism. Or to put it in the current turn, a term which has become very current now, I would call it "national integration". But, Sir, before coming to the point and to the nature or method to be followed for national integration, may I point out that to think about national integration fifteen years after independence, fifteen years after the working of a national Government, is something which is against all that we have been thinking and doing al] these years. Are we to take, Sir, that all the efforts of the national leaders all these years have not been fruitful? Why is it that we are forced today to speak or to chalk out methods, of national integration?

We, from the South, especially from Tamil Nad, while we are sitting here, flid hon. Members though they know English, speaking in Hindi and putting questions in Hindi and getting answers in Hindi. At that time I find a twinkle in their eye, as if to say "You people, unless you learn Hindi, you have to keep quiet." Is that the way to national integration Sir, may I say, even at the point of being misunderstood, that the very term "national integration" is a contradiction in terms? People integrated become a nation and if they become a natior, where is the necesity for integration? Therefore, that term "national integration" ?hows the poverty of ideas which has been holding away all this time. I would, therefore, say this. Let us have a re-thinking. We have a Constitution, of course. Stalwarts of this country sat and devised the Constitution. But the time has come for a rethinking, for a re-appraisal, for a re-valuation and for a re-interpretation of the word "nation".

I claim, Sir to come from a country, a part in India now, but which, I think, is of a different stock, not necessarily antagonistic. It does not mean it is antagonistic. It means only being supplementary to or complementary to not necessarily antagonistic to one another. I belong to the Dravidian stock. I am proud to call myself a Dravidian. That does not mean that I am against a Bengali or a Maharashtrian or a Gujarati. As Robert Bums has stated, "A man is a man for all that." Therefore, it is that I say that I belong to the Dravidian stock and that is only because I consider that the Dravidians have got something concrete, something distinct, something different, to offer to the nation at large. Therefore, it is that we want selfdetermination. After coming here I must say that many times I have found great kindness from hon. Members. I did not expect so much kindness when I came here. I find that this kindness even make3 me forget the animosities that had been created by certain Hindi people. I would very much like to be one with you. I would very much like to be with you as one nation. But wish is something and facts are different. We want one world, one government. But we forget national frontiers. The other day I found the hon. Member Shri Dahya-bhai Patel speak and when he spoke about Gujarat there was such fire in his words and I felt, about such an industrially advanced State—Gujarat— he speaks thus: "I come from Gujarat, I am talking of Gujarat" and so on. Take my State of Madras. It is backward taking into consideration everything. You have here four steel plants. We have been crying hoarse for a decade and m'ore for a steel plant, but what have they given? They gave the portfolio to a new Minister, not the steel industry to us. Perhaps, if hon. Subramaniam had not come here he might have been pre sing for the steel industry from there. Is it diplomacy or prudence or political expediency? I don't know which— but y'ou have brought him here ana" you are going to ask him to reply to the demand of the South.

That is what the Britishers were doing— divide and rule, barter and get money, marshall out figures and demolish arguments. I would say that the fact that we want separation is not to be misconstrued as being antagonistic. Of course, I can understand the feelings that Would very naturally arise in the minds of people in the northern area whenever they think of partition. I know the terrible consequences of partition and I am deeply sympathetic towards them. But our separation is entirely different from the partition which has brought about Pakistan. I would even say that if the ideal is being considered and if sympathetic treatment is afforded, there need be no heat generated. There would not be any amount of consequences. Fortunately, the South itself is a sort of a geographical unit. We call it the Deccan plateau or the peninsula. There will not be any amount of people migrating from this place to that. There will n'ot be any refugee problem. I would ask you to very calmly favour deeper thoughts sympathetically towards that problem.

SHRI JOSEPH MATHEN (Kerala): And what will be the language of the Southern State?

SHRI C. N. ANNADURAI: Sir, the language and other details will be worked out by a Constituent Assembly. Therefore, Sir, the position today is, whatever may be your reading of the situation, fox whatever we do not get in the South, the masses are ready to lay the entire blame on the Indian Government. There will be very natural reasons for not opening certain industries there but the moment we are denied a steel plant, the moment we are denied new railway lines, the moment we are denied an oil refinery, the man in the street in the South gets up and says, "This is the way of Delhi. This is the way of northern imperialism and unless y'ou come out of that imperialism you are not going to make your country safe, sound, plentiful and progressive". Therefore, it is, Sir, that when I talk about separation. I represent the resurgent view of the South and as the illustrious pers'on, Mira Behn, stated some time ago, the natural unity that we found when we were opposing the Britisher is not to be construed as a permanent affair. The principle of separation or, to put it in its own correct way, to call it an act of the principle of self-determination has been accepted by leaders of international repute and more than that, by the Prime Minister of the subcontinent of ours. During the days of Pakistan controversy, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, speaking, if I remember correctly, on the Kapurthala grounds, stated categorically that the Congress as an organisation would try to keep every unit within the Indian Union but if any Indian unit decided to secede, the Congress would give consent for that. Thus, the Congress has recognised the principle of self-determination. I make this bold appeal to that liberal thought, to that democratic spirit and despite the fact that he has become the Prime Minister, I think part of the old fire is still burning in his heart. Why ntot give selfdetermination to the peninsular India? After that India will not be impoverished. I would say that that decision would pave the way for raising the stature of India. I am inviting those people who want to keep India one and indivisible to make it a comity of nations instead t)f being a medley of disgruntled units here ana there. Sir, whenever Members representing different units get up and plead for this project or that project, do they not to that extent forget that India is one and indivisible? Did not our Maharashtra friends, when they wanted a Maharashtra State, at that time forget that India was one and indivisible? Was not the Bengali infuriated when Berubari was taken away and switched over to Pakistan? Was not Bihar infuriated over the claims of Orissa? Is it not a fact that animosity was created over language between Assam and Bengal? While I like that supreme Indian unity and idealogy, whatever these things are, just to brush aside other things by saying that these are all regionalism, parochialism and the like, is to burke it. I would like this House to face this issue squarely and grant self-determination for that part of the country from which I come, the Dravidian part.

SHRI N. M. LINGAM (Madras): Why not self-determination be granted, following your logici to all the States constituting the Union? That would be logical.

SHRI C. N. ANNADURAI: Well, my hon. friend can advocate that. I am pleading for separation 'of Dravida Nad not because of any antagonism but because if it is separated, it will become a small nation, compact, homageneous and united wherein sections of people in the whole area can have community of sentiment. Then we can make econ'omic regeneration more effective and social regeneration more fruitful. Sir, it was only ten days ago that I came to Delhi. I did not wander or saunter along all the avenues but wherever I went, I found avenues, new roads, parks—they are to be found in New Delhi. Why is it, Sir, that it did not occur to the Indian Government that a single avenue be named after a Southerner?

Does that mean that people of the South will have to be second-rate citizens?

SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY: There is the Thyagaraja Road, named after the great musician saint.

AN HON. MEMBER: What more do you want? (Interruptions.)

SHRI C. N. ANNADURAI: Sir, I am surprised at the advocacy of the hon. Mr. Lingam. If he is satisfied with Sir Theagaraya—or is it the Thyagaraja of kirtana fame—road, if he is satisfied with that, I beg to submit that that is n'ot enough fox the South. Come to any southern town. You can saunter in Motilal Nehru Park; you can enter Jawaharlal Nehru Reading Room; you can go to Kamla Nehru Hospital.

SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY: That shows integration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Order. Let him continue.

SHRI C. N. ANNADURAI: You can mot'ox through Abul Kalam Azad Road. Why is it that such a thing is not found in this part of the country? And, Sir, look at the sentiments of the Southerners. When I am pleading for the South it is only my southern friends who come and say, "Don't plead; we are quite all right". This is due to the fear complex instilled info the mind of representatives of the South because if they plead for something they are dubbed as separatists and it may be taken that these people have joined the D.M.K. and, therefore, it may be that their political future might be lost. That is why people get up and say, "Oh, you have got this road and that road". Am I not aware of that? I am as fully J aware of that as Members from the South 'of other political parties are. I am pleading for a national cause, not for parochialism, not for party principle. I want that this great State of ours should have self-determination so that it can contribute its mite to the whole world because, Sir, we have got a culture peculiar t'o ours. There may be a similarity between the culture obtaining in Dravida Nad and the culture that is to be found in other places. And I am reminded, Sir, of your very scholarly statement made some time ago that India is united because Rama and Krishna are being worshipped and venerated from the Himalayas right up to Cape Comorin. So too is Jesus he'd in respect and veneration throughout the world and yet you have got nation—States in Europe and new and newer nation-States are coming up in the world and in what has been termed erroneously as the sub-continent of ours. Therefore, I regret very much that Hie President has not stated anything about the neo-nationalism that is surging up in the South. Sir, I have stated that there are three tenets, democracy, socialism and nationalism. I would conclude by saying that democracy is distorted, socialism is emaciated and nationalism misinterpreted. I think in the coming years there will be a new sense of appreciation and the needs and philosophy of the South will be mote appreciated and selfdetermination accorded to Dravida Nad from where I have the honour to come. Thank you.