அறிஞர் அண்ணாவின் கட்டுரைகள்

THE CHALLENGE

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)