Challenges
are of many kinds. There is the challenge of the prize
fighter itching for a bout in the ring to retain or
regain a world title. There is the challenge of a school
boy to a stronger one made at the spur of the moment
and regretted very soon afterwards. There is the challenge
of the belligerent dipsomaniac to a sober crony, that
leads to nothing. Thee is the desperate challenge of
an advocate who has no further argument to advance,
and who is not able to squarely meet the arguments of
his opponent. We cannot really classify the Madras Finance
Minister's recent "challenge" to the D.M.K.
under any of the above mentioned categories, for there
is in it, a little of each kind. It is best to place
it under a class by itself—the challenges of Congress
Ministers. It resembles a boxer's because it is mouthed
with confidence (often misplaced). It resembles a school
boy's because it is hasty. It resembles a drunkard's
because it is said only when drunk—with power we mean,
not alcohol. It resembles a lawyer's because it is made
desperately and as a last resort, hoping for the best.
What is this challenge of Mr. C.Subramaniam? He is reported
to have said that if the D.M.K. could prove, to his
satisfaction that Tamil Nad was even a little less developed
than any other State in the North, Bengal and Bombay
excepted, he would retire from politics, and public
life and what is more, even part from the office to
which he has been so faithful so far. Like promises
from pretty girls, challenges from Congress bosses are
easily made and easier broken. So we would not have
bothered to take this remark of the trumpet major of
the ruling party very seriously. But as he has been
repeating it ad nauseam we think it proper to examine
what this challenge is, and who makes it, and what are
the merits in it.
The very first fallacy which the Minister makes, in
spite of his oft proclaimed researches into our party
history, is that our national movement is based on an
unjust treatment under Five Year Plans. His challenge
calling upon us to abandon our claim for Dravida Nad,
if we fail to satisfy him on his challenge, assumes
that the Five Year Plan is the basis and origin of the
national movement. May we remind him that the slogan
"Dravida Nad for Dravidians" was raised by
the Southern people long before the sub-continent became
independent, and long before the Five Year Plans were
even dreamt of. The South wanted to be free of the North,
the moment it was conscious of the deep-laid schemes
of the Hindi-dominated Congress to bring the whole of
the sub-continent under a single regime in which the
North would establish an Empire for itself. This was
clear long before independence, when Congress policies
on vital issues began to be decided on a distinctly
Northern dominated stand. For Subramaniam to seek to
link our National movement with the Plan is therefore
both puerile and illogical. We can straight meet the
challenge therefore by asking in a counter-challenging
spirit: "We say the South will be still better
off, if it is free to develop itself. Prove the contrary."
But we shall note so brusque about it.
The second and major fallacy which the Minister's pronouncement
suffers from is its parenthetical clause about Bombay
and Bengal. When we say the North is nourished and South
is starved, we do not except Bombay or Bengal in our
statement. It is no challenge at all to ask us to leave
those two States out of consideration and talk about
the rest. If we say that so-and-so is a rich man and
point out his diamond earrings and gold wrist watch
to prove our statement, what answer is it to ask us
to leave the diamond ear ring and gold watch out of
consideration and then establish the fact? If Bombay
is admittedly more developed, if Bengal is admittedly
better off, then does not the minister cut the grass
from under his own feet, for it only underlines our
argument, far from militating against it. The challenge
is so phrased that if analysed it carries its own answer
within it. But that is not all.
The third fallacy which the challenge reveals is that
any complaint about under-development or unfair treatment
has to be judged over an identical period, and not based
on different periods for different areas. To see if
the South has been treated ill, the Minister should
not seek to compare Madras from 1900 up-to-date with
the development of Uttar Pradesh from 1950 to 1955 and
say the former is not worse off. To meet an allegation
of partiality, he must see the rate at which both the
States have developed during an identical five year
period, say from 1947 to 1952, or 1950 to 1955. We will
then see that vast and rapid strides of development
and improvement have taken place in Uttar Pradesh when
compared with Madras. Since independence, the number
and nature of schemes launched in the North is far beyond
that in the South. This fact cannot be circumvented
by instituting fallacious comparisons.
The whole idea behind the Minister's challenge drops
to the ground when we bear in mind the foregoing factors.
Further, our references to the Plan are not to be construed
as a Reason for wanting a separate entity in the South—they
are only proofs of our fundamental thesis of antithetical
interests of North and South, which had been formulated
decades back.
It would be pertinent to here point out that not only
the D.M.K. but several others, business people, industrial
magnates, commercial people and economists have all
pointed to the lop-sided development of Indian economy.
The comparatively poor conditions obtaining in the South
have been commuted upon. It was not the D.M.K. but a
Congressman who said in Parliament "The South deserves
one fourth of the Plan outlay, but has got only one
eighth"—a sin for which that M.P. has still not
been forgiven by his compeers of the North! Whenever
any man of sense and understanding murmurs about the
need for improving the South, he is dubbed D.M.K. and
the Congress bosses deem fit to lean back in their arm
chairs after that, as if the whole argument has been
met by calling the critics names. Dr.P.J.Thomas and
Mr.E.P.W.Da Costa—both economists of recognised worth—have
had occasion to remark about the need for more improvements
in the South. Chambers of Commerce have hinted at the
necessity for Southern development. Members of the public
who have followed the country's progress with anxiety
and interest have come out with letters to press saying
the South is neglected. Writers of articles—not in our
press—but in the Congress press have voiced the plea
for better attention to the South. We quote only one
such a typical of the feelings of Southern students
of economics. Writing in the Hindu's special supplement
on Indian Industry in Jan., 1958, Mr. Seshan has written.
"The mineral resources of the South have not come
in for attention until recently..."
The author goes on to list some of the industries that
are being mentioned, but have not come into being yet
and which are not provided for in the plan. The tremendous
development of Bombay and Calcutta in respect of industries
is also mentioned by that author.
Last but not least, we have a few passages to offer
from the Madras Government's own memorandum prepared
in 1955 under the heading "preliminary Draft Proposals—Second
Five Year Plan". This is what it says :
"The development of heavy industries in the Madras
State has so far been negligible and the government
consider that at least a few heavy industries should
be started in this State during the Second Five Year
Plan, in addition to the exploitation of Neiveli lignite
deposits..."
That document makes an impressive list of the several
industries that can be started in the South, and' particularly
Tamil Nad. We ask the Minister, how many of this long
list of industries have you been able to get included
in the Plan? Not one worthwhile project! This will also
meet the argument that there are no resources in the
State. The Govt.'s memorandum, which has unfortunately
not reached a larger audience, makes a good survey of
the potentialities of the South, and makes good recommendations,
only to be pooh-poohed by Delhi. Does not Mr. Subramaniam
know all that? He does—and yet he challenges us. Is
that challenge to be taken seriously? If in spite of
our broad indications above, he persists in that challenge,
we have no hesitation in developing this theme and furnishing
further facts and figures. But we are sure that after
seeing his own Government's memorandum and comparing
it with the miserable dole from Delhi, he will, to use
a slang phrase—Shut Up!
(Editorial - 10.08.1958)