Mr.Avinasilingam (Chettiar) one time Education Minister of our State was, it is reported, heckled twice by fellow Congressmen in the Rajya Sabha, while he was expressing his views about the Language problem. We are sorry to hear that, but not surprised. For, though we lack intimate contact with the Hindi fanatics of the up-country as Mr.Avinasilingam (Chettiar) has the unique honour of having we are convinced of this fact: no amount of reasoning could or would make ‘schemers to change their course.’ And as we are convinced that there is fairly big group, bent to enslave the South, by implanting Hindi as the official language, they would be terribly upset whenever and whoever speaks against the Hindi Imperialism.

Mr.Avinasilingam (Chettiar), perhaps, could present credentials enough to prove that he is a better Congressman, than those hecklers! But, Congress or no Congress, if anybody expresses any antipathy towards Hindi, then those chauvinists would not tolerate him.

The ex-minister of our State, bred and brought up in a land which is noted for its democratic spirit probably thought, that a patient and sympathetic hearing would he given, whenever anyone expresses honest difference of opinion. He found to his dismay that he was mistaken.

So long as he was talking on policies of food or fodder, using even scathing words, the Sabha gave him a sympathetic hearing.

In fact, the words used by Mr.Avinasilingam while discussing the food problem, was a bit harsh.

Says the ‘Times of India’ “Mr.Avinasilingam Chettiar who emerged as the strongest critic, virtually voiced the feelings of the opposition when he declared that it was a matter of ‘sorrow and shame’ that while we have been proclaiming that we are going to achieve self-sufficiency, year after year, we have to import food.”

He went to the length of saying that those who are now in charge of administration on the food front, should be replaced by dynamic persons.

There were no protests, no interruptions, but the moment Mr.Avinasi began to talk on the language issue, he had to face heckling!

Mr., Avinasi, writes the ‘Times of India’, “warned up to thunder that any attempt on the part of the majority in the country to force the pace of the change-over to Hindi would result in disastrous consequence—that way lies the danger to the unity of the country.”

We thank Mr. Avinasi for maintaing the true Tamilian spirit—calling a spade a spade, come what may—but we request him to permit us to point out, that if this is the attitude of those upcountry leaders, now, towards such a seasoned politician as Mr.Avinasi, the future relationship between those of the South and those of the North, is bound to be, uglier still!

Mr.Avinasi, was but pleading for ‘caution’—not even for completely giving up Hindi. He did not even utilise such terms as fanatics, chauvinists—he was but requesting them not to force the pace of the change over to Hindi and yet, he was heckled! And why? Those at the North would tolerate any kind of talk—even downright criticism of Mr.Nehru—but they would not allow any word expressed against their policy of Hindi Imperialism.

We are sure, Mr.Avinasilingam would have by this time detected this trait in them—but what is his answer, what is the way out?

True, the exhibition of valour is to be appreciated, but if this is the sort of treatment meted out to men of Mr.Avinasi’s calibre, we shudder to think, what is in store for men with lesser valour and integrity! And, that is one reason why, we want to be freed from the shackles—the future relationship as between those at the North and those who go from the South, is bound to become worsened. Either we submit to become the slaves of Hindi Imperialism or raise for our inherent rights. There is no, ‘in-betweens’!!
We do not know, what thoughts were kindled in Mr.Avinasilingan’s mind, on facing those hecklers, and to what decision he has come to.

We, on our part, are not surprised—our policy gains strength whenever instances such as these take place—they but go to prove the soundness of our logic and the seriousness of our demand.

(Sub-Editorial - 22-02-1959)