Anna’s Rajya Sabha Speech
Madam Deputy Chairman, it is perhaps a painful paradox that we are today discussing about an amendment of the Constitution ot give to the governement as new legal weapon to put down not an antagonist but a protagonist of a cause and that too immediately after expressing our desire and willingness to meet the Chienese aggressor round a table for negotiationj. I have been hearing with more than extraordinary interest to the very many remarks made from both sides of the House. Let me, at the outset, as a sponsor of the idea which you seek now to put down by legal repression, give an analysis of the demand and its history not, of course, to reiterate my point of view but just a dispel demand. ne Hon.Member was saying that the demand for Dravidastan was based or immediately followed after what Phizo demanded. Truth is very far from it. Another member has stated here that such fissiparous temdencies arose after the advent of independence. That is coming very near the truth but not the truth itself. The DMK is an offshoot of the DK. The DK has been in existence long before independence and which there were sranglings, problems and policies as to the future political set-up. the DK, in which I was at that time acting as the General Secretary presented a political formula for the South. It is only as a corollary to that, that the DMK which is an offshoot of the DK is enunciating that principle. therefore, this has nothing to do with the acts of commission or omission of the ruling part. It was nothting to do with similar or more ferocious demands in any other part of the country. I would request members of this House to at least analyse the problem before they pounce upon the problem itself.
Secondly, I want to point out that so soon after expressing our willingness to meet round the conference table an aggressor should you not try, as member of this great nation, to understand us before you try to ban the very propaganda itself? Are we so debased that we should br treated as untouchables in the political arena? Is not our demand so serious that you should try to convince us, convert the people? Are we not amenable to reason? Have you attempted that? That is my humble submission to this House. Irrespective of party affiliations I am requesting every one of the Members of this House to bestow their very best thought over this aspect, whether we have been consulted, whether the ruling party has taken some trouble to analyse our problem. I am mentioning the word ‘ruling party’ because most of the opposition parties have tried to analyse it. This morning one Ho.Member was saying that the Communist Party was allied with us in this. To the honour of the communist Party I may say this that when we approached them that they should accept our principle they had the guts to say that they would not. But electroral alliances or electoral adjustments have got nothing to do with ideologies and therefore when we approached the Communist party and other parties we were not acting in accordance with ideologies but only with a view to getting political alliances. It may be of interest to know to this House that even now this very day the Madras Congress and the D.M.K. in Madras have come to an agreement over the Mayoral election. Therefore political adjustment is one thing, electoral alliance is entirely another thing and ideology is different.
Then the Congress itself must be supporting disintegration.
That is why I am pointing out that an electoral alliance does not mean surrendering of one’s ideology. The Madras Congress is strong enough to uphold its ideology and the Chief Minister of Madras is very strong in his conviction about the Congress ideology. I do not want the Chief Minister of Madrass or the Madras Congress to be misconstrued in our debates. I am saying this just to point out that there can be electoral alliances without surrendering one’s ideology. But I am pleading for an understanding of the ideology; I am pleading for an analysis for a probe into that ideology.
Now this Bill is brought forward to safeguard and maintain the sovereignty and integrity of India. What the danger is to that souvereignty, I do not know and I have not been told. Perhaps the Law Minister - I am sure that he is engaged in drafting a new law and theat is why he is not to be found in the House - if he were here would turn round and say: Know you not that there are fissiparous tendencies in this country? Know you not that he have constituted a National Integration Committee for this very purpose? Know you not that we are acting in strict accordance with the suggestions of the National Integration Committee? I am perfectly aware of teh constitution, Madam Deputy Chairman of the National Integration Committee under the able leadership of Dr.C.P.Ramaswami Ayyar, a sturdy champion of India’s sovereignty and integrity, so sturdy indeed that as Dewan of Travancore he announced the independence of Tranvancore and proclaimed a Pact with Pakistan. Today fortunately for the Congress he is a non-aligned power and you have taken him as the Chairman of the Committee. Let me request Members of this HOuse to analyse how this Committee functions. It was charged witha mission to find out how best to attain national integration, not merely to put down propaganda for secession. It was given the mission to find out how best to forge national integration. What are its constructive suggestions? What are its constructive proposals barring the penal provison that they want to get from out of the National Integration Committee’s deliberations? The National integration Committee, Madam Deputy Chairman, touned all over India and had the coutest of course to go to our Sate. It interviewed men of various political persuasions but were not able to meet members of the D.M.K. because by that time the State Government of Madras had assigned to us appartments in the Vellore Central Jail. That is the reason adduced by the National Integration Committee for not meeting us. But at that time if the National Integration Committee was interested in knowing our point of view, if they had wanted to have contact with us, the Organising Secretary of our party, Mr.N.V.Natarajan was outside the Jail, Mr.Manoharan, M.P. was outside; Mr. Raja Ram was outside. They could mean that Dr.C.P.Ramaswamy Ayyar should come to the jail to meet us. He has had experience of putting others in jail and not himself going to meet us. We are very small men. I do not want such a show of generosity from a Committee manned by such stalwarts but they could have taken the trouble to get into contact with some people who were outside. Did they take that trouble? I would request every member of this HOuse to forget for a moment the dangerous consequences but please answer me. I need no words; a slight smile, a happy twinkle, a friendly nod is enough. It is not connon courtesy and democratic decency that the Committee should have not into contact with the members of our party? Not, they did not do that. Hut they have given a statement and in the Statement Objects and Resaons of the present Bill it is said that they are strictly following what the National Integration Committee has suggested. Therefore the genesis of the Bill is most undemocratic. It is to bring home that point of view that I have taken this trouble of taxing your patience.
Now, I will come to another point. The demand for Dravidastan has been erroneously said to be dangeroous and many of the leading lights of the ruling party have been saying even months ago or weeks ago that they do not understand what we demand. They do not understand and yet they understand this that it is a potential danger. How it is rational or logical or even political, I do notunderstand. It was in this House or in the other House - I do not exactly remembre - that the Home Minister was saying some months ago that all propaganda for secession will be put down when it goes out of bounds, when its dimension grows to a certain extent. Nobody sought any clarification because it was thought that any propaganda for secession will be put down if it leads to any over act, it leads to crossing the bounds of legality. That was stated by the Home Minister some months ago. what has happened in the intervening period? Have we become skull-hunters or head hunters? Did we indulge in any extra legal activities? No. On the otehr hand, as soon as the Chienes aggression took place we offered our unstinted and spontaneous co-operation to the war effor. I am very glad now that the Law Minister is not there.
AN HON. MEMBER:
His deputy is here.
Because when the very same point was mentioned by the leader of our group in the other House, the Law Minister stood up, not with a smily but with a stern face and waving his hands majestically stated that it was all due to the Defence of India Act. The Law Minister is entitled to uphold the potency of law especially when he is the parent of it but in his anxiety to uphold the potency of law he has banished from his mind common courtesy.
I do not expect the Law Minister to give any commendation to the D.M.K. We have people’s approbation in plenty and it cannot be strengthened by any commendation from the Law Minister. I may mention another fact. In his anxiety to uphold the potency of law, he has minimised one other salient fact. The present unity of purpose, the national upsurge is entirely due to the ability and nobility of throught of the Prime Minister of India. That is more potent than laws.
Law says, do not do this, do not to that. That is not as effective as the mighty influence that the Prime Minister exerts over the minds of millions irrespective of party affiliations. In his anxiety to uphold the law, I do not know why the Law Minister should minimize the influence that the Prime Minister exerts. He could have at least stated that the co-operative spirit today to be found in this country is due to the magnetic personality and the democratic liberalism of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. I do not know that happens inside the Cabinet. If the Law Minister’s statement were read by an outsider, what impression would that create? The country is calm because of the Defence of India Act. Otherwise, everyone will become so anti-national, anti-patriotic that there will be trouble. I would request the Law Minister to have proportions when he makes assertions. Apart from that, the Defence of India Act is not and cannot be the conscience – keeper of the nation. It can only be the jail-keeper of the nation. Therefore, if the D.M.K. has come forward to offer its unstinted support to the war effort, I do not expect a good conduct certificate from the Government for that. I do not want reciprocity. I am pointing this out to show whether you do not find a natural instinct, a spontaneous upsurge, coming up in our minds. Should you not allow this instinct to have a natural growth? And is this measure a sort of manure? It is a damper and an irritant. Why not allow this natural instinct and this spontaneous upsurge to have its full shape to have its full blossom, to have its full force? What is the urgency behind this measure? Why are you so hasty? That is the point. And to bring home that point I was pointing out our support to the war effort. As I said, we are very small men, but we happen to represent 3.4 million voters in our country as against the five million voters who made the Congress the ruling party in Madras. I hope I need not argue very much about the difference between five and three. I assure this House that if you do not put dampers on our progress, I assure this House that if you do not bring in legal repressions, we are the next ruling party in Madras. And the Central Cabinet Minister, the Hon.Mr.C.Subramaniam, issued almost an invitation in his Coimbatore speech. He said: Give up separation, I would welcome you to form a Minsiter. It is to such a Party that you are denying the common courtesy, the democratic decency, by not giving us an opportunity to place our point of view before the National Integration Committee or even taking us into confidence.
The Leader of the Communist Party, my very esteemed friend Mr.Bhupesh Gupta, has been very kind enough to put forward suggestion. He said: Why not all the democratic forces and the nationalist forces unite together to counteract them? I welcome that. I would like to see whether the people accept my point of view or your point of view. Why should you run away from that chivalrous contest? I would even request Mr. Bhupesh Gupta to consider this aspect, whether it is not more politic to consider converting us before counteracting.
MR. BHUPESH GUPTA:
That is what I said. I will try.
I am very thankful to Mr.Bhupesh Gupta. Either his method of converting us is not effective or it has not been so intense as he desires. But I would request this House to suggest to the Government that a consultative committee be formed with members of all political parties to come and have discussions. Correct us if we are erroneous. Convince us if you have got solid facts. Convert us to your point of view. Instead of that you are compelling. Compulsion, especially through law – I need not say it in a House where are so many luminaries in the legal profession – is the worst form of argument. When there are two ideas contesting in the competitive market of public opinion, if we debar one idea, if you make one idea to get legal force behind it, you are shirking that contest. And what was the statement being issued by members of the Congress Party in our State right up to the Tiruchengode by election? They were saying and it was repeated in this House also, one Member, my friend, Mr.Bhupesh Gupta, stated that I am a solitary single figure, of course, with hungry looks. I do not think they are feeding me. He said that I am a solitary figure. Another member stated that we have no hold in Kerala, in Karnataka, in Andhra. I do not claim to have converted or even to have got hold of an appreciable dimension support in those sister sStates. I never claimed that. My only point is that when I am making this point it would be felt by those territories, by those linguistic States. I never claim that what I think is being thought at Waltair of Hyderabad or at Mysore or in Trivandrum. I never said that. As a matter of fact, I have not gone to these places. I have not addressed any meeting in Hyderabad. I have not gone to Mysore to speak. And why not you allow me to go there, why not you come along with me< I would even make a sporting offer. Let there be a Consultative Committee of all the parties and let us all tour the country to find out what the country needs. Convince me and then say that my demand is unthinkable. But do not bring in this measure and then say: What are you going to do with this measure? My friend, Mr.Bhupesh Gupta, was saying that we may go underground. Now, we always remain on the ground. We propose not to go underground. But surely the sullen discontent will go underground.
That is What I said.
The sullen discontent will go underground which cannot be countenance by any measure. Political philosophy has not yet formulated a measure to fight out hidden discontent in the minds of millions. And, therefore, by this measure you are driving discontent, sullen discontent, sincere discontent, under ground.
There is another point that I want to make. How is it that you think that our demand endangers sovereignty< Before answering that we should be very clear about what we mean by sovereignty.
What is it that we mean by sovereignty? The Preamble to the Constitution says that the political sovereignty rests with the people. The legal sovereignty is divided between the Federal Union and the constituent units. Why not you take it that our scheme is to make the States still more effective sovereign units? Why not you take it in that light? Why do you think that the moment we demand Dravidastan, we are cutting at the root of sovereignty? Sovereignty does not reside entirely in one particular place. We are having a Federal structure. That is why the framers of the Constitution wanted a Federal structure and not a unitary structure, because as many political philosophers have pointed out, India is so vast-in fact it has been described as a sub-continent-so vast, the mental health is so varied, the traditions are so different, the history is so varied, that there cannot be a steel frame unitary structure here. My complain is – and it has been endorsed by the P.S.P.Member, Mr.Gurupada Swamy and others, that the working of the Federal structure all these thirteen years has created a sense of frustration in the minds of the States. They feel-they may not side me-that the States are fast becoming dole-getting Corporations. They feel that they are relegated to the background and there is the very natural instinct in them that they should be given more power. When coupled with that there is the regional disparity and added to that there is the linguistic tangle, do you not think that it is very natural for men like us to feel disillusioned and that it is not very unnatural that we should think of separation? Well, come to us half-way and say: we go so for and no further. But when you say that, when you meet us half-way, give us proper answer to puzzles that are created not by us but by the working of the Constitution to the detriment of the States. Did not the West Bengal Government and the Union Government have to go before the Supreme Court the issue of the coal mines? The Law Minister happens to come from West Bengal. Are the Bengalees fully satisfied? Constitution-a lists are they are, they have to abide by the Supreme Court decision and if my friend, Mr. Bhypesh Gupta, were not of Communist persuasion, he would perhaps be the first to champion the cause of West Bengal. I bow my head to the national instinct of Bengalees.
Bhupesh Gupta : I did champion it here. Dr. B.C.Roy knew it.
I am very sorry you have lost the battle. What I want to say is that the working of the federal structure is in such a way that the States are feeling more and more frustrated, and their demand is to make the Union Government think that there should be a review of the Constitution, a reappraisal of the Constitution. And in that I am supported by a very presentable personlaity, a personality who can, when he wants, get out and get into the Cabinet. I am referring to the Hon. Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari, Minister of Economic and Defence Co-ordination. On September 8, 1962, delivering an address in one of the institutions in New Delhi in memory of a great soul, the late lamented Feroze Gandhi, he has stated that as framers of the Constitution they have failed to incorporate a provision for a decennial review of the Constitution. Not only that, he said that public opinion should assert itself for that. Well, why do you take me as a Naga? Take me as a guardian of public opinion and come along with me to the States and find out the opinion of the people in the States. Well, I do not think that I want to place any difficulty or trouble in the way of any member of the ruling party, but without mentioning names I may say that many of the members of the ruling party in Madras may swear by the sovereignty and integrity of India, but whenever they find one of their proposals brushed aside, whenever they find one of their projects not taken up, whenever they find that they are not allotted the amount they need, they think about me. (Interruption.) That is why Annadurai is demanding support. deny me a steel plant in Salem, I rise up there. Deny Tuticorin its development, the DMK comes in. Therefore, you should take the DMK as the spearhead of the opposition to the unitary nature of the federal structure of this Consitution. As elder members of Parliament, why should you take this into the jungle? Lift it up to the highest political arena and allow it free play: make the Federation become a real Federation.
Then some of the members may turn around and tell me, “You are talking about separation.” Mr Bhupesh Gupta was saying that it was unthinkable. Even if others are not aware of it, Mr Bhupesh Gupta should be aware of the Soviet Constitution. It allows the prerogative of separation and yet they are not raising a hue and cry that their soverignty is in danger. ( Interruption). Mr Bhupesh Gupta seems to take the bad out of the Soviet Union and not the good out of it. I would request him and persuade him to see that the very mention of separation is not a danger to sovereignty. Not only that, even granting that our propaganda for separation endangers sovereignty, what should a democratic party that controls the Government try to do? Should it not go to the people? Does not our Preamble say that soverieignty rests with the people? It is the people who have created the Constitution. It is to them the repositories of our political rights, that you should appeal. I go to the people with confidence. I would request memebers of the ruling party to assure your Government about your capacity, about your ability to counteract me by educating the public. Why do you give up your rights? You as members of the ruling party and as responsible public men should suggest to the Government, “ Do not intervene between us and the public. If Annadurai carries on a propaganda for separation, we are alive to that danger. We shall meet the people and make the people understand the venomousness of the propoganda”. May I request Members of this House to give an amount of respect to the common man as a democrat? Do not think that the common man can be deluded by anybody. He may not be well versed especially in law but he has got a sound and robust commonsense. He knows how to distinguish between cheese and chalk, and when you bring in this measure, you are passing a vote of no-confidence against the commonsense of the entire nation. Why not leave the issue to the people? Let them decide. Do not think that I along with a handful of people in the party can delude the people or mislead them.The law Minister in the other House gave an argument which I can only say would please teenagers.
Mr. N.RAMA REDDY:
A very misleading logic.
Mr. RAMA REDDY:
Yours is a very misleading logic.
Mr. AKBAR ALI KHAN (Andra Predesh):
I would like Mr.Annadurai to consider what part communal passions have played in the history of India and how people are carried away by communal feeling and communal appeals. I would like him to consider that.
Mr.SANTOSH KUMAR BASU (West Bengal):
May I supplement it by putting another question before Mr.Annadurai who is dealing with this in a most admirable way in my humble opinion? Is it not a fact that the cry for Pakistan was preceded by the cry for more powers to the States in supersessiion of the idea of a centralised government and did uit not form athe preliminary to the cry for Pakistan which was ultimately won on the basis of their claim for moire powers to the States?
Madam Deputy Chairman, after enunciating what I want to say, if you will be kind enough to allow me some more time, I will try to answer him.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
You can have some more time.
So long as sovereignty rests with the pople, they should be the proper authority to decide upon issues. Since the federal structure has been to a certain extent debased and taken into the unitary structure, the demand for separation can be viewed in consonance with the discontent of the other States. I was pressing that point that even granting that our propaganda was dangerous the members of the ruling party should try to counteract us.And even granting that they are relinquishing their right, I would request the Members of the House to consider whether, to counteract that propaganda, curtailment of the fundamental rights is necessary. I would ask the House to consider that point. Of course, I am conscious and perfectly aware that fundamental rights are not absolute and that there are limitations.
Mr. AKBAR ALI KHAN:
. . . . . and
Parliament has got every right to restrict them. These are the elementary principles. One need not take much trouble to understand them. But some trouble should be taken to understand that the emphasis should be on the rights and not on the limitations and that is why in our Constitution it is stated in very clear terms, that the restrictions ought to be reasonable. My honest submission is that the restrictions are not reasobable, not reasonable in the sense that firstly, you have not analysed the problem: secondly, you have not tried to understand us: thirdly, you have not given us alternatives and forthly, you have not taken the pople into your confidence. It may not be in the legal sense, but in the political sense the restrictions that you have placed are not reasonable.
And coming to the fundamental rights, I was saying that the Law Minister was giving a very funny argument in the other House.He said that if fundamental rights were to be allowed to have their full sway, some people might use those fundamental rights to invite the Chinese themselves. What I want to point out is, why should the Law Minister or, for that matter, any Member discount the ability of the public to judge things for themselves? Would the public countenance anybody getting on the platform and saying, “ We welcome the Chinese?” No. Our people may not be well-versed in the sections and in the chapters of the Consitution but they know how to differentiate between good and evil. And that is why in spite of so much enslavement by a powerful imperial power, the people were ready to come forward when there was a call for fighting for freedom. Don’t minimise your abiding faith and confidence in the public.
And as regards the fundamental rights, the argument presented by the Law Minister in the other House, as I have said, is far removed from not only truth but also from all seriousness. But, as I said, limitations can be placed and Parliament is empowered to place limitations. But all these limiations should be in consonance with the extraordinary circumstances warranting such limitations. I argue, I submit that there have not been any extraordinary cicumstances warranting such a limitation. In fact, in the Motilal Nehru Committee, I think in the year 1928 Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has stated very clearly that we should not only get our fundamental rights but guarantee to the people that those rights will not be withdrawn under any circumstances. Note these words, Madam Deputy Chairman, and through you, I would request Members of this House also to mark all these words: “ under any circumstances,” We may have grown weaker since. I can understand it. But has an extraordinary circumstance arisen to warrant these restrictions? No: and arguments have been put forward that circumstances may arise, that the DMK might not have crossed the legal bounds but yet the tendency to create mischief is there, the tendency to create danger is there and we should put down with an iron hand even that tendency.I do not think that I have time enough to talk about the place of the phrase ‘tendency’ in the legal field and jurisprudence known to the legal hierachy. But I would say this that one of our best legal luminaries, Mr Justice Patanjali Sastry, has stated that it is better to allow certain noxious branches to have a luxurious growth rather than to attempt to cut off and sap the vitality of the plant. That is one of the judicial pronouncements about fundamental rights and its limitations. And in America there are many Supreme Court judgements. Of course we are not bound by them but they point to the liberality of thought that can be found in democratic countries. At one time in one of the States, New York I think, when a new law was brought in that, those who wanted to become teachers should take an oath there that they would be loyal to the Constitution and that they would be loyal to the political institutions, the Governor of New York stated that such an abridgement of the fundamental rights was unnecessary and vetoed it. I think that we should follow or at least try to shape our thoughts according to the liberal traditions built up in other democratic countries.If, instead of that, you say, “Well. We have the power to annihilate, annihilate any oposition party, today the DMK, tomorrow the Communist Party, the day after the Jana Sangh,” you have got that power, well carry on. But remember where any government depending for its solidarity and supremacy only on legal repression went. And what the result would be, I need not remind you. Even today, we found on this side of the House, Mr Bhupesh Gupta wanted not only the DMK to be countered but the Jana Sangh to be counteracted because to him the Jana Sangh is a communal party. and the PSP has stated that the Communist Party is more dangerous than the DMK, so we come in handy. We are on the opposide side...
Mr.sHEEL BHADRA YAJEE:
It would apply to all parties which would advocate separation from India whether it is the Communist Party or the DMK.
Mr. BHUPESH GUPTA:
He is Mr. Yajee.Madam Deputy Chairman, if anybody should be counteracted by all of us, it is Mr. Yajee.
Madam Deputy Chairman, it was said that I said that this was due to the Defence of India Rules. I never said it. I said, to a certain extent, it might be and I have no doubt taht for some miscreants those rules are meant. I never suggested either the DMK or anyone else. Far from it, I said this that, to a certain extent, the Defence of India Rules might be responsible. What is wrong in it?
My complaint was that expression of such a sort of sentiment is not in the nature of reciprocation of thought.
We cannot shut overselves to the fact that there are miscreants about, who wanted to fish in troubled waters, but let the Hon.Member not accept the cap fitting him. I never mentioned him or his party.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
You carry on, Mr. Annadurai. I hope it is clear now.
I was talking about this issue. If you allow the ruling party to get into the temptation to restrain or restrict freedom of speech and expression, it may be aimed at the DMK to day, but what guarantee is there that it may not be aimed at other parties tomorrow? For that the ruling party need not argue. We argue ourselves. The PSP argues for restricting the Communists: the Communists argue for restricting the Jana Sangh. The more the merrier for the ruling party. Therefore I would request members of this House to look at this problem as a problem of restriction of Fundamental Rights. let the members of the ruling party at least say that they can stoutly oppose us in our propaganda: let them come forward at least to convince me and on that ground, if they can, let them oppose this Bill in toto. Because my friend, Mr Bhupesh Gupta, has said that he is accepting it in principle. Another friend of mine, Mr Gurupada Swamy, has said that he is accepting it as an overall objective, which means...
Mr. BHUPESH GUPTA:
Overall political objective.
.... which means that they realise the consequences of such restrictions. I would request them to take into consideration the consequences of such a law rather than the party at which it is aimed. It has been stated, Madam Deputy Chairman, that freedom of expression and thought should not be restricted in a democratic society if members of the ruling party are confident not only about themselves but about the people. Says Bagehot:
“One of the most important purposes of society and government is the discovery and spread of truth on subjects of vital concern. This is possible only through absolutely unlimited discussion. . . “ As Bagehot points out, “. . . once force is thrown into the argument, it becomes a matter of chance whether it is thrown on the false side or the true, and truth loses all natural advantages in the contest.” I would request the government not to establish silence by coercion of force but to establish concord by talking in the language of the heart. I therefore appeal to the members of the ruling party to stand by the fundamental rights, and to maintain your right to educate the public, instead of bringing in a legislation which is in the nature of a penal provision to put down all thought and all expression of dissent or difference.
Finally, Madam Deputy Chairman, I should infor the Hon. Member, Shri Sri Rama Reddy - he said I am having a defective logic or somethin like that -
Mr. N.SRI RAMA REDDY:
I think that no Member should alow himself to be misled, and I am not capable of misleading anybody. I thought perhaps my logic itself was misleading because I am very anxious to have logic in its pristine purity. But as to the criticism that I am misleading, I am not strong as that, to mislead people.
Mr. PANNALAL SARAOGI:
Madam Deputy Chairman, the Hlon. Member has been misleading the people of his State. That is why this Bill is going to be passed.
An HON. MEMBER:
The fear is that you will mislead the people . . .
MR. AKBAR ALI KHAN:
On communal grounds (Interruptions).
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
Yes, Mr. Annadurai, you please finish. He said that you are misleading the people of your State and that is why this legislation is necessary.
MR. PANNALAL SARAGOGI:
People are being awayed by your arousing their sentiments and passions and that is why this Bill is being enacted.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
They are afraid they may be awayed also.
Madam Deputy Chairman the statement discouts the ability and capacity of Congress in Madras.
MR. SANTOSH KUMAR BASU:
On the question of force I would like to ask one question. My friend has said. “Do not use force. Passing of this law would mean - well - use of force in enforcing your ideas. Has the DMK altogether refrained from resorting to force or people who are supporters of that course? Have you always refrained from using force?
Certainly. We have made problamations many times that we are a strictly constitutional party.
MR.SANTOSH KUMAR BASU:
In spite of that railway stations have been burnt or at least the signboards at railway stations.
Not stations - but the constitution. My hon.friend is mistaking the actitivities of the DK for DMK’s. That is why the whole trouble. I may inform the House this, that at least by this measure you can make the DMK not contest the elections byt the DK is a party which is not contesting elections and therefore this measure is not going to affect them.
MR. SANTOSH KUMAR BASU:
We are not concerned with the DK or the DMK. We are concerned with the law which may be applicable to all.
But the DK is an ally of this Congress Party, I believe.
That is for the Congress Party to consider. My point, Madam Deputy Chairman, is this: I appeal to the members of the ruling party to suggest to their Government that a measure of this sort is unnecessary, is undemocratic, and it cuts at the very roots of fundamental rights. I am not referring to the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution but to the fundamental rights of Congressmen. They are not made a party to this issue. They are asked to stand aside. The measure says, “Annadurai should be counteracted. you have failed in that. let me come in.” This is a sort of passing a vote of no-confidence against the ability and capacity of the Congressmen of Madras, for whom I have the greatest respect.You seem to minimise their importance. That is my trouble. You seem to feel that they are incapapable of counteracting this. This is the tragic situation, and therefore it is that I would request the members of the ruling party to suggest to the Government, “Here we are, stalwarts, to fight any fissiparaous tendencies. leave us to look after Annadurai, such a small, puny figure. A mere look, an emphatic word, is enough to scotch that fellow.” Say that to your party, to your Government, and withdraw this Bill because if it enters into the statute book, it means not only now but for all time to come, that a situation arose in India wherein the Government of India had to bring forward an amendment to the Constitution to counteract a small group or, to borrow a phrase from my friend Mr Bhupesh Gupta, to counteract a single solitary man.
MR. BHUPESH GUPTA:
No, No, I did not say that.
MR. AKBAR ALI KHAN:
I can assure Mr. Annadurai that is not meant only against one single individual or a single party. It is against all secessionist tendencies, whether it is in Punjab or whether it is in Madras, or whether it is in any other part of the country keeping in view our experience of communal tendencies and communal passions during the last thirty years.
MR. BHUPESH GUPTA:
Madam, Deputy Chairman, I never called him single and solitary, because he has somehow or other, put the fear of God into the Congress - with his party. I know that.
I am borrowing his pharase with thatnks, not with condemnation.
As for the Hon. Mr. Akbar Ali Khan’s remark, I can very well understand the hesitancy with which he is putting that argument, but I would say this, that the bill is aimed at not only the DMK but at others also. My point is I am concerned with the Party to which I belong. If there are other representatives who may be talking equally in this way or if there are representatives of this ideal who are submerged that ideal for their selfish ends, I am not concerned with them. My point is to present the point of view of the DMK: it may be aimed at others also. But if you look at the dailies, weeklies and if you go to hear speeches from political platforms, they will be pointing out only the despicable DMK, not others. Therefore, since you pinpoint the DMK, I have answerved some of the criticisms.
Finally, I would appeal to the sponsor of this motion to drop it in the name of democracy, in the name of political decency, in the name of having abiding faith in the ability of the people to eschew evil. And if he is not able to free himself from the temptation completely, let me at least request him to defer consideration of this measure till the period of stresses and strains is over during which time we should bot be discussing about controversial measures; controversies should be kept in the background. And if the sponsor of the measure is not able to comply even with that request, Madam Deputy Chairman, please allow me to register my protest against the ruling party’s methods, moves and measures.
My point, Madam Deputy Chairman, is this: I appeal to the members of the ruling party to suggest to their Government that a measure of this sort is unnecessary, is undemocratic, and it cuts at the very roots of fundamental rights. I am not referring to the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution but to the fundamental rights of Congressmen. They are not made a party to this issue.
They are asked to stand aside. The measure says, “Annadurai should be counteracted. you have failed in that. let me come in.” This is a sort of passing a vote of no-confidence against the ability and capacity of the Congressmen of Madras, for whom I have the greatest respect.You seem to minimise their importance. That is my trouble. You seem to feel that they are incapapable of counteracting this. This is the tragic situation, and therefore it is that I would request the members of the ruling party to suggest to the Government, “Here we are, stalwarts, to fight any fissiparaous tendencies. leave us to look after Annadurai, such a small, puny figure. A mere look, an emphatic word, is enough to scotch that fellow.” Say that to your party, to your Government, and withdraw this Bill because if it enters into the statute book, it means not only now but for all time to come, that a situation arose in India wherein the Government of India had to bring forward an amendment to the Constitution to counteract a small group or, to borrow a phrase from my friend Mr Bhupesh Gupta, to counteract a single solitary man.
I would say this, that the bill is aimed at not only the DMK but at others also. My point is I am concerned with the Party to which I belong. If there are other representatives who may be talking equally in this way or if there are representatives of this ideal who are submerged that ideal for their selfish ends, I am not concerned with them. My point is to present the point of view of the DMK: it may be aimed at others also. But if you look at the dailies, weeklies and if you go to hear speeches from political platforms, they will be pointing out only the despicable DMK, not others. Therefore, since you pinpoint the DMK, I have answerved some of the criticisms.
Finally, I would appeal to the sponsor of this motion to drop it in the name of democracy, in the name of political decency, in the name of having abiding faith in the ability of the people to eschew evil. and if he is not able to free himself from the temptation completely, let me at least request him to defer consideration of this measure till the period of stresses and strains is over: controversies should be kept in the background. And if the sponsor of the measure is not able to comply even with that request, Madam Deputy Chairman, please allow me to register my protest against the ruling party’s methods, moves and measures.