Panikkar when deputed by the government of India, to
find out facts, analyse the problem and formulate a
plan for the Reorganisation of States, gave as his definite
opinion, that Uttar Pradesh should be split into two.
As an erudite scholar of the politics of many a land,
Sardar Panikkar ought to have noticed, the msassiveness
of Uttar Pradesh and ought to have recommended the splitting
up of that State, so as perhaps to safeguard political
equilibrium. His words were not heeded to, and Uttar
Pradesh remains the biggest State, in the Federation.
We referred to the problem of Geo-politics last week.
And Sardar Panikkar knows the intricate problem of Geo-politics
better than anybody else. From the days of the Athenian
Confederation right up to the present the federating
or confederating units, if they are of unequal size
or strength, or potentiality, there is bound to be concentration
of power in the hands of the strongest of the units.
And the strongest need not always be the Just—oftentimes
the contrary is found to be the fact.
And this problem has been admirably explained by Dr.Sinha
in an article captioned 'Power politics in India', in
the Modern Review, May issue.
Dr.Sasadhar Sinha is not, we hasten to explain, advocating
separation. He but analyses the present political set
up and issues like many of his way of thinking, friendly
advice and sympathetic suggestion. And here is what
the Doctor has to say about Uttar Pradesh;-
"The position of Uttar Pradesh remains unrivalled
as formerly. It is not only the mot populous State in
the Union, but also the most important politically.
At the head of the States stretching right across India,
from the East to the West, it provides a fulcrum to
the so-called Hindi block now in the making. Having
seized control of the machinery of the Congress and
the Central government it wants to give its power an
impregnable territorial basis."
It is this feeling that was responsible for the pungent
remark of another commentator, "India that is Bharath,
that is Utta Pradesh."
Many leaders from our own State do take us into their
confidence in private, and stress this fact—the domineering
position of Uttar Pradesh and its concomitant evils.
Uttar Pradesh by vittue of its size, population and
resources, is able to get, or even to wrest much from
the Centre, and in this process it is able to get itself
Geo-politics means this much—political power when allowed
to get itself concentrated in a particular territory,
in a common political set up, then that territory gets
the Master's position, and from that position, it is
able to still further stengthen itself, making the other
units look small, slavish and feeble. That is what is
now taking place. And this is not the view of the 'Separatists'—but
of Dr. Sinha who still wants to save United India from
"The pattern of power, both within it and the Central
government, will clearly demonstrate that it has come
more and more to be identified with a particular area,
which indeed is the point of departure for a new sinister
development in Indian politics. What is being aimed
at is nothing short of a calculated application of Geo-politics
to an Indian setting."
The move is calculated! The scheme is sinister! And
it is being done in the name of an enchanting ideal,
'India is one and indivisible.' Those who probe into
this reality and issue notes of warning are denounced
as traitors, and those who succumb to its charms are
hailed as patriots. If anyone dares to point out history,
they are dubbed bookish, and if others nattate the practical
difficulties, they are derided as men devoid of idealism.
Some deny the fact, that there is a sinister move at
Geo-politics, and there are still others who do not
deny the move, but refuse to call it sinister, but the
bravest of them all is our Chief Minister Kamaraj, who
presumably from out of the abundance of knowlwdge of
History and Politics. Geography and Science, and Economics,
gathered from all the nooks and corners of the land
during all these years of his study-tours, comes forward
to accept all that, and ask bluntly, what if? Well,
when one takes up that stand, nobody could withstand!
One can meet and annihilate arguments, but not an exhibition
of stupendous indifference to the most elementary facts
of Geography and History and Economics. Those who are
conversant with the history of aggrandisement know full
well, that the aggressor need not always be of the ferocious
type, he can don on a charming smile, to screen off
the sinister moves. And that is what is happening at
Explaining Geo-politics, Dr. Sinha says it is an "attempt
to dominate the whole of India from a strategically
advantageous position by a system of checks and balances,
by a graduated system of patronage."
Through this method, Uttar Pradesh is fast becoming
the citadel of Hindi Chauvinism.
Political domination in the modern context inevitably
leads to economic domination; and that unit which has
become the most powerful within a federation, is able
to formulate economic planning that would be most advantageous
There are some who attempt to dispel the natural suspicion
in the minds of the thinking section, by presenting
platitude. They say, it is a federation not an Unitary
form of government, hence, States cannot be said to
have lost their individuality and freedom.
Dr.Sinha explodes this argument admirably. Says he,
"India is called a Union of States but it must
be realised that the States at present are beginning
to count for less and less, and more and more power
is being concentrated at the Centre."
The Centre controls the purse strings, and the patronage
that it could afford to distribute, are so many baits.
And the flesh being weak, many succumb to the temptation
betraying their own land.
Nor is this centralisaition diminshing; on the other
hand, the Centre is utilising every available opportunity
to grab more and more power for itself. As Dr. Sinha
says, "This tendency towards increasing centralisation,
is indeed the fons et origo, the fount and source of
current power politics in India'.
After arguing that centralisation is the major source
of current demoralisation in Indian administration and
public life, Dr. Sinha wants the Centre to divest itself
of the powers already grabbed, restore genuine autonomy
for the States, and take for itself the role of co-ordinating
agency. If such a healthy reform is not forthcoming,
Dr.Sinha warns, that there would be dire consequences,
breaking of the unity, chaos and confusion.
We are of course, not going to doubt the wisdom or sincerity
of Dr. Sinha, and we do offer our deepest sympathies
to him. He is attempting to soften a stone, and we are
afraid, he would not succeed in convincing the Centre.
For the Centre, having had a taste of power in abundance,
has become almost addicted to it.
We are thankful to Dr.Sinha for laying bare the stark
reality of the situation—the idea 'India one and indivisible'
has led to the happiness and prosperity not of India
as a whole, but to the most favoured unit.
And now, we ask, should we not consider, a way out—simple,
When men like Dr. Sinha were to argue for de-centralisation,
other political pundits would come forward to point
out the defects and dangers inherent in a loose federation.
There would be never-ending discussion and no decision
could be undertaken.
Hence we put forward the most natural and simple solution—Separation.
Independent States could forge friendship, come under
some form of association, and live in peace and amity,
everyone of them extending the hand of friendship to
the other. And assured of an Independent status, everyone
of the National states could grow to its highest perfection,
utilising its native talent and tradition. And India
could become a delightful garden, of many hues and colours,
"Oh! that is Balkanisation"—would the Congress
boss say employing mockery in his tone. The term 'Balkanisation,'
we admit, has become an odium. It is mentioned in a
contemptuous way. But let us analyse and find out, whether
Balkanisation is as bad as many claim it to be.
We are happy to procure the services of D.R.Gadgil of
the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics to argue
the case. In his book "Federating India" D.R.Gadgil
explodes the myth that has gathered around the word
"In the light of known facts of Balkan History,
it is difficult to see what exactly is implied by the
use of the term. Nobody seems to deny the fact that
the Balkan peninsula is inhabited by separate groups
of people who have not found a way of living peacefully
with each other.
"If by Balkanisation is merly meant the creation
of new States following upon the recognition of difference,
it is a historical process to which no opprobrium could
attach. In fact, the lesson of history elsewhere is
that the creation of separate States offer a better
prospect to different groups of people living amicably
as neighbours than forcing them in one incompatible
And our stand is this and we invite anyone to dispute
our argument and deny our thesis—the so-called India
today is nothing but an incompatible Union, and however
strong one attempts to make it, the forces of weakness
are bound to have the upper hand.
As Mr. Gadgil puts it, "It has to be remembered
that the claim of separation arises from a feeling that
the specific interests of a group are likely to be sacrificed
to such a large extent in the whole. that the acceptance
of some inconvenience or some disadvantage is preferable
to continuing the unity."
And that is why the D.M.K. feels very strongly and pleads
with all sincerity for the Separate Sovereign State,
so that there could be justice in the fullest sense
of the term and a realisation of the best and the noblest,
that the people inhabiting Dravida Nad are capable of
Those who attach all importance to the ideal, naturally
refuse ot yield, refuse to compromise, for it would
be akin to a "man putting out his eyes the better
to receive the remote light of an invisible star by
But there are, we admit, with a pang, some who succumb
to the sweets of tempation. The flesh is weak!
With understandable bitterness and admirable boldness,
a Member of Parliament spoke about the domineering position
of Uttar Pradesh, long before Dr.Sinha wrote his analytical
article on this subject. The House was discussing problems
connected with the Sugar Industry, and the M.P. stood
up to say,
"Sir, I have no intention to criticise any provincial
government, much less the government of the U.P. I know
it enjoys a very privileged position today. It is not
persona non-grata with the Centre as some of the other
provincial governments are.
"I would not ahve mentioned the name of the U.P.
government here, but for the fact that the policy with
regard to sugar is being decided not in Delhi but in
Such an outspoken remark came forth from the lips of
a Congress M.P.; let us not tax your patience. It was
Mr.O.V.Alagesan who made such a bold statement. But,
alas, the Imperialists had the means in their power
to seal the lips, and after being raised to the level
of a Deputy Minister, this champion became the chaprassi
of the Imperialists. That clearly is an illustration
of the point, the flesh is weak.
But in spite of desertions and betrayals the cause is
everyday gaining new converts and fresh strength and
it was with pardonable pride that we read some days
ago, a group of bold and upright men standing up to
demand a Separate Bengal! We salute those dauntless
patriots. They may be small in number and their opponents
might be in possesion of massive size. But that should
not, and we are sure would not, deter this group from
advocating a cause. We know that some of the non-Congress
parties stated that they would attack this demand for
Separation, tooth and nail! We do not know the strength
of their tooth and nail, nor do we know why they are
talking about such primitive weapons. We know this much,
when there is a National upsurge, cannons were found
to be ineffective to stem it, and where fire and sword
failed, we do not think that "tooth and nail"