‘

‘TRIVENI’ HAS SHED LIGHT ON MY PATH.
BLESSED BE HER NAME!

‘THE TRIPLE STREAM’ ^l

The Lokamanya

Among the makers of modern India, Lokamanya Tilak takes a very high rank. Scholar, patriot and fighter for freedom, he gave of his best to the causes he held dear. Naoroji and Mehta were his seniors in the public life of Bombay, and Gokhale his contemporary. They all set up standards of conduct which won for Bombay its primacy in the political life of India. They were the builders of the Congress organisation and sought to make it the spearhead of an unofficial opposition in the legislatures and outside. To them, as to many others of that era, the association of Britain and India was ‘providential’ and fraught with important consequences to both countries. If there was an element of tutelage in that relationship, an effort was to be made to convert that tutelage into a friendly association which would ‘in the fulness of time’ lead to some form of colonial self-government. The people were not yet aware of their rights, and Indian politicians wedded to the Gokhale tradition relied on the support of the higher intelligentsia–the University men, engaged in the professions of law, medicine and journalism, and of the business magnates who paved the way to industrialisation in the teeth of vested British interests.

Tilak and his associates from all parts of India broke away from that tradition. They attempted for the first time to awaken the middle classes and the ‘common’ men to a sense of their grievances under foreign rule. And, what was more important, they felt that they were under no obligation to confine themselves to legal and constitutional methods for achieving their ends. That law and that constitution were laid down by a foreign power, which could alter them at its will. If political progress was to be made, it might become necessary to transgress the law. From the emergence of this new school of thought in Indian politics in 1906 to the advent of Gandhiji in 1920, Indian public life was divided into two opposing camps,–the moderates and the extremists. Both wanted Swaraj, and neither favoured violence. But they differed in temperament and outlook.

With the coming of Gandhiji there was a new alignment, and the overwhelming power of public opinion was ranged on the side of the struggle for freedom through non-violent non-co-operation and civil disobedience. The people made notable sacrifices and passed through travail and agony. For the first time in history, a great nation won its liberty without resort to arms. To lovers of freedom, the memory of Gokhale, Tilak and Gandhi will always be precious. In diverse ways, they were the architects of Free India.

Tilak was conscious of the part played in Indian history by the builders of the Mahratta Empire. Shivaji, and after him, the Peshwas, were men of action, inspired by idealism. So Tilak became an exponent of the philosophy of action, and, in his commentary on the Gita, the Lokamanya upheld the ideal of right action–action without attachment to the fruits–as envisaged by Sri Krishna. Wisdom and Devotion were important, but they must result in activity in the world of men. This man of action was himself a seer and a prophet. His vision was clear, and during the many crises of his life, he never wavered for a moment about the course to be pursued. Called to leadership during a period of turmoil, he displayed all the qualities which one associates with the heroes of nations. The greatest of these qualities was the absence of any vestige of personal ambition. A grateful nation paid its homage to the memory of the Lokamanya to mark the centenary of his birth. May that nation be worthy of him!

Bi-lingual States

With the assent of the President the States Re-organisation Bill has become the law of the land. On the 1st of November the new States will begin to function, and negotiations are already in progress for the constitution of interim Ministries. After the general elections in February 1957, and about the beginning of April, a completely new picture of the re-organised States will emerge. The working of the Second Five-Year Plan and the normal five-year activity of the Union and State Governments will thus be simultaneous. One looks forward with hope to the newchapter in India’s history.

The Bill underwent few changes in its passage through the two Houses of Parliament. Alast-minute agreement on an enlarged bi-lingual State of Bombay was precipitated by the resignation of the Finance Minister, Sri Deshmukh. Bi-lingual Bombay without Vidarbha; three separate States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bombay City; two States on a uni-lingual basis with Bombay City Centrally administered,–these were the various solutions discussed from time to time, and rejected in the end in response to popular sentiment in one or the other of the areas affected. The final agreement on bi-lingual Bombay was acceptable to the leaders of Maharashtra and Gujarat, and had the approval of an overwhelming majority in Parliament. But certain influential sections of public opinion in Gujarat, notably the students and the industrialists, made common cause with the Opposition parties, including the Communists and the Socialists, and led an agitation in favour of Maha-Gujarat with Ahmedabad as its Capital. Events took an ugly turn and all the resources of the State had to be employed to restore peaceful conditions. Even the presence of Sri Morarji Desai on the scene failed to win over the discontented sections. This led to an eight-day fast by Sri Desai, during which two top-ranking leaders like the Congress President and Sri S. K. Patil negotiated with the agitators and secured a none-too-peaceful hearing for the Chief Minister. Things seem, to be quieting down, but it is worth while analysing the problem from the point of view of those who led this agitation against the declared decisions of Parliament.

Right from the early stages of the movement for linguistic States, the Maharashtrians and the Gujaratis put forward their claims to recognition as separate entities. There never was a serious proposal from either to keep them together in a bi-lingual State while the rest of the Indian Union was being carved into uni-lingual States. The only point on which opinion was divided was the future of Bombay City. The Maharashtrians have all along claimed it as an integral part of Maharashtra and as the natural Capital of their newly integrated State which included Vidarbha and Marathwada. Any solution which cut the City away from Maharashtra was, to them, unthinkable. The Gujaratis on the other hand were opposed to the inclusion of the Cityin a uni-lingual State of Maharashtra. They felt they were entitled to share the City with the Maharashtrians; they pleaded for its constitution into a separate territorial unit, either as a City State or as a Centrally administered area. They would not accept the solution sponsored at one stage by the Maharashtra Congress Committee favouring a bi-lingual Bombay State with Bombay City as its Capital, because the resolution of the Maharashtra Congress Committee carried a sting with it–that, at the end of five years, the Gujaratis could opt out of the bi-lingual State and form their own State of Maha-Gujarat leaving Bombay City to Maharashtra. The final solution incorporated in the Bill does not include this offending clause, but it nevertheless cuts at the root of the Gujarati claim for a separate State of Maha-Gujarat. They were certain of the fulfillment of their wishes in this regard, so that the decision to form a bi-lingual State came as a rude shock to them. They were denied a separate State and they were to be citizens of a bi-lingual State in which they would be in a minority of 1 to 3. The Opposition parties took advantage of this prevailing discontent, and fanned the flames of disorder.

From the point of view of national solidarity and the softening of linguistic animosities, the formation of bi-lingual Bombay with all the Maharashtrian and Gujarati areas is an event which augurs well. The State belongs to both, as does the City which both hold dear. The events and the controversies of the recent past may leave a trail of bitterness. But, with mutual goodwill and understanding, and under the leadership of far-seeing statesmen like Sri Morarji Desai and Sri Shankar Rao Deo, the new State may establish healthy conventions for the solution of conflicting claims in the spheres of administration, trade and industry, language and culture. At the end of five or ten years similar States in the East and the South may emerge. Language and the rivalries arising from it will cease to be of much consequence. Linguistic minorities throughout the Indian Union will realise that their interests are safe in the hands of the majority in every State.

The Home Minister, Pandit Pant, was unwilling to concede the demand of some members of Parliament for a Boundary Commission to settle all disputes between neighbouring States. He preferred to leave the matter to the new Zonal Councils, though he did not rule out the possibility of the creation of a Commission or Commissions at a later stage, if the Government of India saw the need. But the Zonal Councils or Boundary Commissions must have well-understood formulas, applicable on an all-India basis, to guide them. This point has been urged by the Government of Andhra. Soon after the States settle down to their task of national development, the problem of the border areas has to be tackled. Instead of allowing the piecemeal and haphazard treatment envisaged by the Home Minister, the Union Government, in, consultation with the Chief Ministers of the States, can formulate a uniform policy for future implementation. This will restore harmony between neighbouring States and promote the ideal of a common nationhood transcending regional loyalties.

Egypt and the Suez

The refusal of Britain and the U. S. A. to finance the construction of the Aswan Dam over the Nile has led to serious international complications. President Nasser of Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal Company and assumed complete control over all operations in the area. This was a challenge to Britain and France which are vitally interested in the maintenance of the Canal as an ‘international waterway’ open to the free passage of the vessels of all nations in war as well as in peace. Britain retaliated by freezing all Egyptian assets in British banks and by taking steps, military and otherwise, for the protection of her interests. The world seemed to be rushing into war, but America, as usual, intervened to prevent a sudden outbreak. The London Conference of 22 nations could not arrive at unanimous decisions, but the Dulles formula, sponsored by the Western powers, won the support of 18 nations. This seeks to impose international control over the Canal while formally recognising Egypt’s sovereignty over the area covered by the Canal. Egypt, which was an invitee to the Conference, declined to attend; a watching brief was however held by President Nasser’s Chief Political Officer, Aly Sabry. The Indian proposal for an Advisory Body under the aegis of the United Nations Organisation did not find favour with the majority of the States at the Conference.

The general impression seems to be that the Menon formula has a chance of being accepted by Nasser as the basis of negotiations, while the one to be presented to him at Cairo on the 3rd of September by Mr. Menzies, head of the five-nation delegation, may be rejected altogether. At one time it was doubtful if President Nasser would at all agree to receive the Menzies delegation, but, thanks to Sri Krishna Menon and other diplomats who are anxious to find a peaceful solution, the Egyptian leader will discuss the position and state his views. Meanwhile Britain is going ahead with her military preparations, to meet all eventualities, and French troops are being massed in Cyprus.

The Security Council of the U. N. O. was the proper forum for the discussion of the momentous issues involved in this controversy between Egypt and the Western powers. But the latter did not wish that valuable time should be lost in the process of making a reference to that body. And they were nervous about the veto of Russia. The London Conference has had beneficial results, inasmuch as it has created conditions favourable for negotiations. Much depends on the spirit in which the Cairo talks are conducted. Resurgent nationalism in Africa and Asia is 10th to bend to the might of the West. India, under the leadership of Nehru, can always be counted upon to pull its weight on the side of peace and goodwill. Immediately after his return home, Sri Menon made it clear that India was not keen on pressing forward with any formula of her own. She would be ready to help all parties to arrive at a settlement. The prime factor in the situation is the assertion by Egypt of her sovereign rights over the Suez. Subject to those rights she is prepared to guarantee the safe passage of all vessels and the maintenance of the present level of tolls. She is further prepared to register such guarantees with the U. N. O. and accept the advice of any international body which owes its existence to the U.N.O.

War must be avoided, and the next few weeks are likely to witness a return to normal conditions. Whether Egypt will insist on summoning another Conference remains to be seen. What Egypt seeks to avoid is a repetition of old history involving the presence of foreign troops in the Suez. Short of this, she will make all concessions to conciliate international opinion.

^l August 31