Bull-Boxers are bellowing out their fury with an energy
that surprises even their friends. They are vigorously
engaged in what they imagine to be an 'all-out effort'
to shatter all opposition and especially that coming
from the D.M.K. And they are advancing all sorts of
assertions and abuses as arguments. Perhaps they think
that the 'stink' that their speeches unleash in enough
to annihilate all opposition. But they forget, that
the people who expect a straight reply to the pertinent
points raised by the opposition, got only, 'gutter-stuff'
by way of reply. Vituperation and vilification are the
easiest of jobs, especially when those who emit such
stuff happen to be in power. Prestige, personal or that
pertaining to a party, never gets damaged by such despicable
abuses and dictatorial assertions.
Attempting to cloud the issue, side-track the people
and mislead the public, is too old a tactic, that has
been found out to be of no avail, where the people are
alert and intelligent. And simply because the people
were cajoled into voting for the Bull-Boxers, one cannot
say that they have lost all sense of logic. They demand
specific explanation, but find only evasive replies.
'Why should the government ban the meeting?'—Is a very
pertinent question that is being put forward not only
by the D.M.K., but by all lovers of freedom of speech.
The answer is at once rustic and reminiscent of the
How dare they ask us permission to hold a meeting for
the specific purpose of mobilising the people for staging
a black-flag demonstration?—asks the Chief.
Two issues arise out of this pronouncement.
Is the Chief Minister suggesting that staging a black-flag
demonstration is such a heinous crime, that he and his
government should never even countenance the very idea?
Is the Chief Minister and his colleagues, so impoverished
of the ability to influence the public, that he is afraid
of allowing the D.M.K. to meet the people?
What would have happened, had there been that meeting,
on the third of January? Not a catastrophe! Had they
confidence in themselves, the Chief and his colleagues,
after that meeting, would have met the masses, the very
How heroic and democratic would it be for the Chief
to call for a gathering, the very next day and advise
the people, to dissociate themselves from the programmes
of the D.M.K.? That would have been a real measure of
his influence—power—and good-will too. But the chef
did not attempt at that. Prudence, they say, is the
better part of valour. And after harassing the people
and hunting down the D.M.K., the chief and his retinue
are out emitting sound and fury!! What a pathetic sight
indeed! And the Hon'ble ministers vie with one another
in this art. But the issues remain unanswered.
(a) Why was the meeting banned?
(b) Why did not the ministers exercise their
influence over the people, asking them to
desist from joining the demonstration?
(c) Why should thousands of D.M.K., men be
'rounded' up and remanded in the moffusil
towns and villages, when the black-flag
demonstration was scheduled to be staged
only at the city?
Unable to face these issues squarely the Hon'ble Ministers
are belching out platitudes, bellowing abuses, and blowing
The D.M.K., knows how to bear scorn and sneers, abuse
and ugly epithets, with patience and forbearance. The
D.M.K., has dedicated itself for the task of supreme
importance, and hence has got to bear with patience
and even unconcern, any amount of abuse from all and
'When arguments fail, abuse begins', is an old saying,
and the bellowing of the Bull-Boxers goes to show how
true is that even today.
Instead of placing before the people explanations for
their acts of commission and omission, the ministers
try to throw some accusation or other at the D.M.K.
These men are traitors—says one. They are reactionaries,
says another. They have bungled all issues, says a third.
They have betrayed me, bemoans still another. They are
disruptionists, thunders another. But to none of them
is ready with a logical, sensible, explanation for their,
ill-advised, hasty and rash deeds on that day the 6th
We do not shirk the responsibility of answering some
of the charges levelled against the D.M.K. by hon'bles.
Answering them would be not only these easy, but also
profitable, and perhaps might also be useful in getting
some new converts from out of their camp itself. But
we want to point this out first—the Congress ministers
are now before the bar of public opinion to answer a
specific charge—they have acted in the most undemocratic
manner and have unleashed unnecessarily, repression
of an irritating kind.
That is the charge! To pile up counter-charges, culling
them out, off-hand from many a problem, like the language
issue, Separation question religion, elections and the
like, is not only not called for, but goes to show that
they are impoverished.
But there is, we would like to point out to our friends,
a method in their illogicality. By raising issues other
than the one, for which they are asked to answer, they
think, that they could side-track the people, divert
their attention and thus escape the necessity for answering
the charge levelled against them by the public. That
is an old trick and the D.M.K., is fully aware of it.
The D.M.K., refuses to fall into the net spread out
by the Congress bosses—and it would go on placing its
case before the bar of public opinion. And the case
is simple and strong. The D.M.K., announced its intention
to stage a black-flag demonstration before Pandit Nehru—and
the Congress government, to meet this, had resorted
to lathi-charge, tear-gas; it has imprisoned 4,700 members
of the D.M.K., and during the hectic situation on that
day, two persons died.
"There is blood on your hands", we say, "there
are tears in our eyes." Answer, Oh! Democrat! Is
this the kind of democracy for which the Sage of Sabarmathi
gave his all! Is this the kind of freedom, for which
thousands sacrificed themselves? Aren't you ashamed
of your deeds? Are you not going to heave a sigh, shed
a drop of tear in remorse? And as if to add insult to
injury, you are mouthing platitudes, hurling accusations,
and even issuing challenges!
And, what after all are your wondrous arguments—unconnected
as they are from the issue now before the public?
The problem of Separation. Sure, that is our goal! Either
we get it, or the guillotine gets us—that is another
problem, however. The issue now is, the autocratic methods
unleashed by the pseudo-democrats! Answer that charge!!
Your charges, placed as you are on high pedestal, you
should pardon us, when we say, your charges, are flimsy—the
latest additions to the D.M.K. would answer those charges,
with an ease and an abundance of facts. So, please do
not be under the impression that, you are placing mighty
hurdles on our path. Answering your charges would be
a sort of amusement for many of the D.M.K. We are not
being arrogant, but a bit plain. Your charges, are built
upon half-baked and ill-digested knowledge about our
issues—whereas we, as the sponsors of a scheme, devotees
of a theory, crusaders for a cause, are thorough with
the problem and armed with unassailable facts.
Let us, at any rate as a sort of hobby, take up one
The Hon'ble Home Minister—(three cheers!!) asked the
other day, "What would be the fate of the Southerners
who are now in the North when these people here cry
hoarse about Separation?"
The Home Minister would have expected a pat on his back
from the Chief—for this exhibition of an extraordinary
sort of intelligence. But is that charge, unanswerable?
And is that a charge at all?
True, there are a great number of Southerners in the
North—but should not the Minister inform the public,
what is their position there! Not all of them are provided
with posts of power,—no cushioned chairs at Calcutta
offices or air-conditioned rooms at Bombay, not for
all of them.
Poverty and unemployment and the inability of the Congress
government here to solve these problems—these are the
contributory causes for their emigration.
The Home Minister has no answer to the question, why
is it, that his government is not able to provide employment
for those people?
And, if the Hon'ble minister refuses to listen to the
voice or ordinary folk, like ourselves, let us present
him with a pronouncement of very recent origin, and
one that comes from very respectable quarters.
Of course, the pronouncement was not made during any
"Ninety-nine percent of the money-lending business
in Madras is carried on, by people from Marwar and Rajasthan.
The old money-lending Chettiars are gone. The profitable
operation of business is from North to South and only
the clerical operation is from South to North."
This was the pronouncement made by an eminent Advocate,
who is engaged in what is called as the Journalist Act
Case—or as is commonly called as Goenka case. Mr. Visvanatha
Sastri, Counsel for the Journalists, placed this opinion
before their 'Lordships'. What was placed before their
'Lordships', would, we hope, not be spurned away by
the Hon'ble Home Minister.
There are any number of instances to show the exact
nature of Relationship between the. North and the South—and
even teen-agers are proficient today in enumerating
them. And yet, the Hon'ble Mr. Bhakthavathsalam thinks
that by trotting out this question, the D.M.K., would
get itself lost in a maze of arguments, and thereby
give up the issue of today. The D.M.K., refuses to be
fooled in that way. The issue today is, what justification
could the Congress government marshal out to explain
their hasty, rash and autocratic acts of commission
and omission, when Pandit Nehru visited Madras. Why
is it, that they, by their ill-advised acts, created
a sickening impression in the minds of the People here?
The ministers are not aware, perhaps, of the feelings
of the public here—the public asks, is this a visit
or a visitation!
As they have not yet ostracised English as commanded
by the Chief, we are sure, they would and could find
out the difference between the two words Visit—and Visitation.
(Editorial - 09-02-1958)