தொடுவானம் 111. அண்ணாவின் திராவிட நாடு கோரிக்கை

This entry is part 4 of 12 in the series 13 மார்ச் 2016
Anna on the mike

அண்ணா தமிழக முதல்வராகப் பதவியேற்ற ஒரு மாதத்திற்குள் அவரை நேருக்கு நேர் பார்த்து அவருடைய சொல்லாற்றலைச்  செவுமடுக்கும் பேறு எனக்குக் கிட்டியது. அவருடைய தமிழைத்தான் அதுவரை அரசியல் மேடைகளின் தொலைவில் நின்று கேட்டதுண்டு. ஆனால் அண்ணாவின் ஆங்கில உரையை வெகு அருகாமையில் அமர்ந்து இரசித்தது எங்கள் கல்லூரியில்தான்!

அது கல்லூரியின் பட்டமளிப்பு விழா. மருத்துவம் படித்து முடித்து வெளியேறும் மருத்துவ பட்டதாரிகளுக்கு முறைப்படி பட்டம் வழங்கும் விழா. கல்லூரி முதல்வர் சாமர்த்தியமாக அண்ணாவை அதில் சிறப்பு விருந்தினராக அழைத்துள்ளார். அண்ணாவுக்கு அதுவே அதிகாரப்பூர்வமான முதல் நிகழ்ச்சி என்பதும் குறிப்படத்தக்கது.

விழா ஸ்கடர் நினைவு அரங்கில் நடைபெற்றது. அதுவும் புதிதாகக் கட்டி திறக்கப்பட்ட பெரிய மண்டபம். கல்லூரியையும் மருத்துவமனையையும் உருவாக்கிய ஐடா ஸ்கடர் அம்மையாரின் நினைவாக அது கட்டப்பட்டது. அன்று மாலை கல்லூரி மாணவமாணவிகள், பேராசிரியர்கள், தாதியர் பயிற்சி மாணவிகள், மருத்துவமனை ஊழியர்கள் அரங்கத்தில் நிறைந்திருந்தனர். அரங்கம் பெரிதாக இருந்தாலும் அன்று இடம் பற்றாக்குறை நிலவியது. அண்ணாவைக் காண கட்சித் தலைவர்களும் பொதுமக்களும்கூட வந்திருந்தனர்.அதனால் அரங்கம் நிரம்பி வெளியிலும் மக்கள் காணப்பட்டனர்.

குறித்த நேரத்தில் அண்ணா காரில் வந்திறங்கினார். அவர் வெள்ளை நிறத்தில் முழுக்கைச் சட்டையும் வேட்டியும் அணிந்திருந்தார்.அரசியல் மேடைகளில் நான் பார்த்திருந்த அதே எளிமையான அண்ணாதான்! அவரைக் கண்ட மாத்திரத்தில் என் உள்ளத்தில் எழுந்த உற்சாக உணர்வுக்கு எல்லை இல்லை. நான் சிங்கப்பூரில் பள்ளிப் பருவத்திலிருந்தே போற்றும் அண்ணாவை அருகில் காண்பது எப்படியிருக்கும்! அதிலும் இனிமேல் தமிழ் மக்களை வழிநடத்த வந்துள்ள தமிழக முதல்வர் எங்கள் அண்ணாவல்லவா! சாதி மத பேதத்திலும், மூட நம்பிக்கைகளிலும் புரையோடிக் கிடந்த தமிழ்ச் சமுதாயத்தை திராவியாட உணர்வுடன், பகுத்தறிவுப் பாதையில் வழிநடத்திச் செல்ல வந்துள்ள அண்ணாவல்லவா! இனி தமிழ் மக்களிடையே பிளவுகள் இருக்க நியாயம் இல்லை. தமிழர் அனைவரையும் அன்புத் தம்பிகளாக தட்டிக் கொடுத்து ஒற்றுமைப் பாதையில் கொண்டுசெல்ல வந்துவிட்டார் நம்முடைய அண்ணா!

          அண்ணா தமிழில்தான் தங்குதடையின்றி அடுக்கு மொழியில் உரையாற்றும் புலமை பெற்றவர் என்பதை தமிழ் கூறும் நல்லுலகம் அறியும்.ஆனால் அவரின் ஆங்கிலப் புலமையும் அபாரமானது என்பது வியப்புக்குரியது. அதற்கு எடுத்துக்காட்டாக இருந்தது அவர் இந்திய மேலவையில் ஆற்றிய முதல் அறிமுக ஆங்கில உரை. அது வரலாற்றுச் சிறப்பு வாய்ந்தது. அந்த உரையில் அவர் வெகு சாமர்த்தியமாக இந்திய துணைக்கண்டத்தில் ஜனநாயகம், பொதுவுடைமை, தேசியமயம் போன்றதெல்லாம் குறைவு என்று கூறியதோடு அவற்றுக்கான சிறப்பான விளக்கமும் தந்தார். அதோடு அவர் நின்று விடாமல் அந்த முதல் சொற்பொழிவிலேயே தென்னாட்டினருக்கு திராவிட நாடு வேண்டும் என்ற கோரிக்கையையும் வைத்து மேலவையை சலசலப்புக்கு உள்ளாகினார். திராவிட இயக்கம் துவக்க காலத்திலிருந்து ” திராவிட நாடு திராவிடருக்கே ” என்ற கோரிக்கையை மேடைகளிலும் ஏடுகளிலும் பிரபலப்படுதிவந்துள்ளது. அதற்கு முத்தாய்பாக அமைந்ததுதான் அண்ணாவின் மேலவை உரை. அதன்பின்பு சபை ஜனாதிபதி உரை மீது விவாதம் செய்வதை விட்டுவிட்டு அண்ணாவின் உரை மீது தொடர்ந்து விவாதம் நடத்தியது வரலாறு. அந்த வரலாற்றுச்  சிறப்புமிக்க ஆங்கில உரையை அவருடைய ஆங்கிலத்திலேயே இன்று படித்துப் பார்த்தாலே அண்ணா ஒரு பேரறிஞர்தான் என்பதை நாம் புரிந்து கொள்ளலாம். அண்ணாவின் ஆங்கிய உரையைக் கேட்ட மேலவை உறுப்பினர்கள் அனைவரும் அவரை வியந்து நோக்கினர். அந்த ஆங்கில உரை இந்திய துணைக்கண்டத்தையே ஒரு கணம் உலுக்கியது. அந்த உரையை அப்படியே இங்கே தொடுவானத்தில் தருவது இந்த நேரத்தில் பொருத்தமானது என்று அதைத் தந்துள்ளேன்.

Anna’s maiden speech at the Rajya Sabha was on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address to the Session of Parliament in April 1962. It was a scathing indictment of the Government of India, a clever caricature of its policies. For the first time, the echoes of resurgent neo-nationalism were heard at the Capital, heard as a convincing logical concept, from an accredited leader of a political party elected by the Legislators of that Party to represent them in the Rajya Sabha. The demand for a separate ‘Dravida Nadu’ comprising the four Southern States, was seriously and solemnly made in the Indian Parliament.

Anna had established his reputation as a most outstanding Tamil Speaker of his generation; but the Members of the Rajya Sabha were agreeably surprised to listen to his maiden speech delivered in English with eloquence, fluency, and conviction. Anna’s attempt was to persuade his colleagues in the Rajya Sabha to see reason and logic in his demand for a separate Dravida Nadu.

This maiden speech of Anna’s was so thought-provoking that the speakers who followed him discussed and analysed it far more than the President’s Address itself.

Revered Chairman, I thank you for having given men this opportunity to association myself with the observations made in this august assembly. Of course, I was a bit hesitant to take part in the discussions of this session because I thought that my method ought to be to listen and learn rather than talk and rake up controversies. But the very congenial atmosphere that I find here has emboldened me to join the rich chorus of praise that has been showered upon the President of this great country. I join the others in paying my tributes to the unstinted services of our President, though he is in failing health, and when I pay a tribute to Babu Rajendra Prasad, the President, I do not claim to have been a camp-follower of the President. I do not identify with the ideologies of the political party to which he is wedded. I was admiring the very able effort of the President from a vast distance. Perhaps that gives me strength as well as weakness. Weakness in the senses that I cannot have the same amount of warmth that others who have worked along with him would have claimed. Strength because the tribute I pay to the President is not to be construed as a dutiful partyman’s tribute to another partyman, but of one who having seen from a distance the unstinted service of the President, pays the tribute that is due to him. Therefore, Sir, while I express my respect, when I pay my tribute to the Hon. President I have to couple it unfortunately with a sense of disappointment with the Address that he has delivered. As students of constitutional history know, it is only the Government that is speaking through the President and therefore any remark, bitter or otherwise, which is stated about the Address, is not to be construed – and I am very confident it would not be construed as anything against the President. In spite of the President, the Government has failed to deliver the goods, as it were. Therefore, Sir, Members on the opposite side have certain sentiments to express about that.

I have had the benefit of having listened to a veritable discourse on planning by the Father of Planning, if I may call him so, the Hon. Mr. V.T. Krishnamachari. But on going through the President’s Address, I find that it reads more like the prospects of a company rather than a message of hope and ideals – prospects of a company because that company today seems to be in need of more and more members – prospects of a company because that company has been found to be needy. Therefore, Sir, throughout the speeches from the ruling party on the Address and the Motion of Thanks, I found a sort of jubilation, a sot of elation on their part “Oh, we have been elected by the people for three consecutive terms. Therefore, whatever we say is correct, whatever we do is correct and the smaller parties have no right to question our rights and our prerogatives.”

Sir, I may point out, that after having won a victory in the General Elections, any party has got the right to be jubilant. But may I, with your permission, point out to the ruling party, that it is not very astounding for a well-organised and well-founded party like the Congress to win the elections pitted as it is against opposition groups of varied interests and varied ideologies? May I point out, Sir, that the strength of the Congress does not lie in itself; the strength of the Congress lies in the weakness of the opposition parties. Therefore, instead of being jubilant over the victory, the ruling party should learn to be humble, magnanimous, liberal and democratic. Therefore, the very first thought, the very first sentiment that Members on this side were pleased to state, was about the corrupt practices in elections.

Sir, as the Members on this side spoke about the corrupt practices in the elections, the people of the ruling party rose to ask whether it could be proved. Sir, may I point out that if we were able to lay our hands on proofs, we could have dragged them into courts of law rather than come to this august assembly to present our sentiments? It is not always easy for parties placed at a disadvantage to produce proofs. We lay more emphasis on the philosophic side rather than the legal side of the matter. Did we not see some time ago, strictures from High Courts, that the ruling party – though it may be legal on their part to take donations from industrial firms, it is highly immoral – got their weapons from the armoury of the Tatas and the Birlas? They did not find it below their diginity even to go to the Mundhras for funds. Has the country forgotton from where their election fund was built up? Is it on this basis that the ruling party is jubilant? Perhaps, the ruling party Member might say that corrupt practices can be found in other political parties too. But as the premier political party of this vast sub-continent, is it not the duty of the Congress to set high traditions? I am reminded, Sir, of the saying of Sanskrit Pandits, “Yatha raja tatha prja”. Whatever traditions the Congress sets, other political parties may follow. I conveniently use the word “may” because “may” implies “may not” also. Therefore, our first point is that this election was not fair and free and the people’s will was not legitimately consulted. Therefore, if at least during the next elections the ruling party does not associate itself with the protagonists of free bonus, profiteers and permit-mongers, and as Mr Ganga Sharan Sinha stated the other day, If Members of the ruling party and the Cabinet resign at least six months before the general elections, I challenge Sir, the ruling party to come back to power. Therefore, the first ingredient that the President wants in his Address is that we should build up high democratic traditions by dissociating ourselves from the N.Sri Rama Reddy (Mysore : Is there any democratic precedent for this?

Chairman : He is asking whether there is any democratic precedent for resigning six months earlier.
Bhupesh Gupta (West Bengal) : There is hardly any precedent, Sir, to interrupt a maiden speech.

Of course, Sir, this is my maiden speech, I am not bashful of interruptions therefore, I like them.

The second point I want to make on the President’s Address is, that I understand that three cardinal principles are begin enunciated in the President’s Address – democracy, socialism and nationalism. As far as democracy is concerned, unless we have proportional representation coupled with a system of referendum initiated in a vast sub-continent like this, you cannot have any utility for democracy. I regret that the President in his address, has not given the shortcomings of democracy as it has been worked out for the past ten or fifteen years. I would request this House to consider the matter, whether it is not necessary and expedient now at least to have a free thinking on the tenets of democracy.

About socialism, Sir, the other day I found in this House a new meaning given to socialism. When my Hon. Friend, Sri Ramamurthi was telling the House about the big industrial concerns, the Tatas and Birlas, I found the Hon. Member giving an amazing interpretation of shares and profits. He was pleased to say that though crores and crores of rupees are gathered as profit, it does not go to the coffers of the individual capitalists like the Tatas and Birlas, but is being disbursed to the shareholders. Sir, if that is the economic interpretation, why do we have two sectors, public and private? If my Hon. Friend thinks that private is public, the private industries controlled by Tatas and Birlas are after all public, why make a differentitation between public and private? Sir, he was far off the mark when he said that these shares and profits were distributed and disbursed.

Sir, we have had Committees which have gone into the question and they have stated that powerful, industrial empires have been built up, monopolies have grown. I find that the Prime Minister of this country has stated that the question should be looked into. I understand that a Committee is working and they are going to find out how and where the amount of wealth produced by the two Plans has gone. Therefore, Sir, instead of arguing that socialism is to be of a different kind, give it some other name; why drag in the name of socialism and give your own interpretation to socialism? Socialism is not mere welfare, because socialism is something other than guaranteeing welfare. It works to create inequality. I am aware, according to Laksi, that equality is not identity of treatment, but affording equal opportunities for all. But in this country of ours, can we say that equal opportunities have been given, or are being given to all? What about the Scheduled Castes, what about the Backward, Classes?

Some time ago, I read in the papers that there was a conference at Hyderabad of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes wherein the Prime Minister and the Hon. Mr. Jagjivan Ram were present, not to present a united front but to give varied opinions. The Prime Minister was said to have stated there that distinctions like Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes were not to be allowed hereafter. Mr. Jagjivan Ram, naturally enough, rose to say that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes needed patronage because they have been driven to the last rung of society. If two such stalwarts can hold different views and remain in the same party, is it any wonder, Sir, that there is difference in ideology between the ruling party and other parties? Therefore, the interpretation given to socialism and the implementation of socialism are not leading us towards socialism.

Here, I have to refer to what a great friend of India, an admirer of the Governemnt, the Ambassador of the United States of America and an economist, Dr Galbraith, says about our socialism. He has called it ‘post-office socialism’. Why does Professor Galbraith call it ‘post-office socialism’? He says that public enterprises should be run to maximize revenues, that is to say, profits, in a developing country like India. The idea is that the profits made should in turn be ploughed back into the unit, should be reinvested, and should be used for the good of the people. Just now we have been hearing the observations of the Hon. Member, Sri V.T. Krishnamachari. He was stating that in the public projects, whether they be irrigation projects or power projects or industrial projects, the returns are not up to the mark. I would say that much money has been sunk in the public sector. But neither have the targets been reached nor are the returns commensurate with the efforts taken or the sonnets sung about Sindri or Bhakra or other projects.

Sir, I would hasten to state that I must not be misconstrued to mean that I am against planning or against the public sector. I am all for planning and all for the public sector, but if in the public sector the return is so meager; if in the implementation of the public sector there is so much of wastage we have to examine it carefully. There are rumours about corruption. I am not in a position to present facts and figures, but the rumour is widespread that there is corruption and maladministration and other evils connected with the public sector. Therefore, I feel that the President should have stated in his Address, that in spite of having the vision of socialism, we are not moving towards that socialism.

The third point, which is a point that is very intimate so far as the party to which I have the honour to belong is concerned, is nationalism. Or to put it in a term which has become very current now, I would call it ‘national integration’. But, Sir, before coming to the point and to the nature or method to be followed for national integration, may I point out that to think about national integration fifteen years after independence, fifteen years after the working of a national government, is something which is against all that we have been thinking and doing all these years. Are we to take, Sir, that all the efforts of the national leaders all these years have not been fruitful? Why is it that we are forced today to speak or to chalk out methods, of national integration? We from the South, especially from Tamil Nadu, while we are sitting here, find the Hon. Members though they know English, speaking in Hindi and asking questions in Hindi and getting answers in Hindi. At the time I find a twinkle in their eye, as if to say “You people, unless you learn Hindi, you have to keep quiet!” Is that the way to national integration? Sir, may I, even at the expense of being misunderstood, point out that the very term “national integration” is a contradiction in terms” People integrated become a nation and if they become a nation, where is the necessity for integration? Therefore, that term ‘national integration’ shows the poverty of ideas which has been holding us up all this time. I would, therefore, say this : let use rethink. We have a Constitution, of course. Stalwarts of this country sat and devised the Constitution. But the time has come for a re-thinking, for a re0appraisal, for a re-valuation and for a re-interpretation of the word ‘nation’.

I claim Sir, to come from a country, a part in India now, but which I think is of a different stock, not necessarily antagonistic. I belong to the Dravidian stock. I am proud to call myself a Dravidian. That does not mean that I am against a Bengali or a Maharashtrian or a Gujarati. As Robert Burns has stated, “A man is a man for all that”. I say that I belong to the Dravidian stock and that is only because I consider that the Dravidians have got something concrete, something distinct, something different to offer to the nation at large. Therefore it is that we want self-determination.

After coming here, I must say that many times I have found great kindness in the Hon. Members. I did not expects so much kindness when I came here. I find that this kindness even makes me forget the animosities that had been created by certain Hindi speaking people. I would very much like to be one with you, I would very much like to be with you as one nation. But a wish is one thing and facts are another. We want one world, one government. But we forget national frontiers. The other day I found the Hon. Member Mr.Dayabhai Patel speak and when he spoke about Gujarat, there was such fire in his words and about such an industrially advanced State, Gujaraj,” and so on. Take my State of Madras. It is backward taking into consideration everything. You have here four steel plants. We have been crying hoarse for a decade and more for a steel plant, but what have they given us? They gave the portfolio to a new Minister, not the steel industry to us. Perhaps if the Hon. Subramaniam had not come here he might have been pressing for the steel industry from there. Is it diplomacy or prudence or political expediency? I don’t know which but you have brought him here and you are going to ask him to reply to the demand of the South. That is what the British were doing – divide and rule, barter and get money, marshall out figures and demolish arguments.

The fact that we want separation is not to be misconstrued as being antagonistic. Of course, I can understand the feelings that would very naturally arise in the minds of people in the northern area, whenever they think of partition. I know the terrible consequences of partition and I am deeply sympathetic towards them. But our separation is entirely different from the partition which has brought about Pakistan. I would even say that if sympathetic treatement is afforded, there need be no heat generated. There would not be any dire consequences. Fortunately, the South itself is a sort of a geographical unit. We call it the Deccan plateau or the peninsula. There will not be a large number of people migrating from this place to that. There will not be any refugee problem. I would ask you to very calmly bestow deep and sympathetic thought on the problem.

Joseph Mathen (Kerala) : And what will be the language of the Southern States?

Sir, the language and other details will be worked out by a Constituent Assembly. The position to-day is, whatever may be your reading of the situation, for whatever we do not get in the South, the masses are ready to lay the entire blame on the Indian Government. There will be very natural reasons for not opening certain industries there, but the moment we are denied a steel plant, the moment we are denied new railway lines, the moment we are denied an oil refinery, the man in the street in the South gets up and says, “This is the way of Delhi. This is the way of northern imperialism and unless you come out of that imperialism and unless you come out of that imperialism you are not going to make your country safe, sound, plentiful and progressive.” When I talk about separation, I represent the resurgent view of the South and as the illustrious person, Mira Behn, stated some time ago, the natural unity that we found when we were opposing the British is not to be construed as a permanent affair. The principle of separation or, to put it more explicitly, the principle of self-determination, has been accepted by leaders of international repute and more than that, by the Prime Ministers of this sub-continent of ours. During the days of the Pakistan controversy, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, speaking, if I remember correctly, on the Kapurthala grounds, stated categorically that they, the Congress, as an organization, would try to keep every unit within the Indian Union; but if any Indian unit decided to secede, the Congress would give its consent. Thus, the Congress has recognized the principle of self determination. I make this bold appeal to that liberal thought, to that democratic spirit. Despite the fact that he has become the Prime Minister, I think part of the old fire is still burning in his heart. Why don’t you give self-determination to peninsular India? After that, India will not be impoverished. I would say that decision would pave the way for raising the stature of India. I am inviting those people who want to keep India one and indivisible to make it a comity of nations instead of its being a medley of disgruntled units here and there.

Sir, whenever Members representing different units get up and plead for this project or that project, do they not to that extent forget that India is one and indivisible? Did not our Maharashtra Friends, when they wanted a Maharashtra State, forget that India was one and indivisible? Wash not the Bengali infuriated when Berubari was taken away and switched over to Pakistan? Was not Bihar infuriated over the claims of Orissa? Is it not a fact that animosity was created over language between Assam and Bengal? While I want that supreme Indian unity and idealogy, just to brush aside other things by saying that these are all regionalism, parochialism and the like, is to burke it. I would like this House to face this issue squarely and grant self-determination for that part of the country from which I come, the Dravidian part.

N.M. Lingam (Madras) : Why can’t self-determination be granted, following your logic, to all the States constituting the Union? That would be logical.

Well, my Hon. Friend can advocate that. I am pleading for separation of Dravida Nadu not because of any antagonism but because, if it is separated, it will become a small nation, compact, homogenous and united, wherein sections of people in the whole area can have a community of sentiment. Then we can make economic regeneration more effective and social regeneration more fruitful.

Sir, it was only ten days ago that I came to Delhi. I did not wander or saunter along all the avenues, but wherever I went, I found avenues, new roads, parks – they are to be found in New Delhi. Why is it, Sir, that it did not occur to the Indian Government that a single avenue be named after a Southerner?

Lakshmi Menon (The Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs) : There is the Thyagaraja Road. Does that mean that people of the South will have to be second rate citizens?

N. Sri Rama Reddy : There is the Thyagaraja Road named after the greate musician-saint.
An Hon. Member : What more do you want?

Interruptions

Sir, I am surprised at the advocacy of the Hon. Mr. Lingam. If he is satisfied with Sri Theagaraya – or is it the Theagaraja of Kirtana fame Road, if he is satisfied with that, I beg to submit that it is not enough for the South. Come to any southern town. You can saunter in Motilal Nehru Park; you can enter the Jawaharlal Nehru Reading Room; you can go to the Kamala Nehru Hospital.

N. Sri Rama Reddy : That shows integration.

You can motor through Abdul Kalam Azad Road. Why is it that such a thing is not found in this part of the country? And, sir, look at the sentiments of the Southerners. When I am pleading for the South it is only my southern friends who come and say, “Don’t plead; we are quite all right.” This is due to the fear complex instilled in the mind of representatives of the South, because if they plead for something, they are dubbed separatist and it may be taken that these people have joined the DMK and, therefore, their political future might be lost. That is why people get up and say, “Oh, you have got this road and that road,” Am I not aware of that? I am as fully aware of that as Members from the South of other political parties are. I am pleading for a national cause, not for parochialism, not for party principle. I want that this great State of ours should have self-determination, so that it can contribute it smite to the whole world, because, Sir, we have got a culture peculiar to us.

I am reminded, Sir, of your very scholarly statement made some time ago that India is united because Rama and Krishna are being worshipped and venerated from the Himalayas right up to Cape Comorin. So too is Jesus held in respect and veneration throughout the world. Yet you have nation-states in Europe and new and newer nation states are coming up in the world.

Therefore, I regret very much that the President has not stated anything about the neo-nationalism that is surging up in the South. Sir, I have stated that there are three tenets, democracy, socialism and nationalism. I would conclude by saying that democracy is distorted, socialism is emaciated and nationalism misinterpreted. I think in the coming years there will be a new sense of appreciation and the needs and philosophy of the south will be better understood, and self-determination accorded to Dravida Nad from where I have the honour to come.

Thank you.

          ( தொடுவானம் தொடரும் )

Series Navigationஅப்பாவும் மகனும்’ரிஷி’யின் கவிதைகள்: அடியாழ உள்வெளி
author

டாக்டர் ஜி. ஜான்சன்

Similar Posts

16 Comments

  1. Avatar
    ganapathy says:

    Excellent speach.Even to day the step motherly treatment continues.No such talented MPs exists now except Vaiko who can speak good english as well with relevent pointsThats the reason there is one and only Anna.

  2. Avatar
    ganapathy says:

    In another speach at Delhi regarding naming TamilNadu when opposition MPs including cogress MPs from TamilNadu asked what is the use of changing TamilNadu,Anna quipped saying why u changed Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha instead of Parliament stunning the members.The speach is in the net and every one should read.
    Er.Ganapathy 65 years as I had the same feelings about Anna and love for him and worked for DMK as student Like Dr.Johnson during my college days 1966 to 1972

  3. Avatar
    S Ganesh says:

    I appreciate Dr Johnson’s erudite writings and his description of Anna as the saviour to save Tamilnadu from the caste and community differences and conflicts and foolish beliefs and faiths. However just now I read about a young couple being attacked in day light in a public place and the man being killed and the woman being grievously injured. Only because they had a inter caste marriage. While Tamil Nadu has progressed economically and industrially caste divisions have taken deep roots and caste conflicts and murders have become a routine affair under the Dravidian rule for the past almost 50 years. We have caste and community based political parties springing up in Tamil Nadu. A sorry state of affairs. I do not know whether Anna would have approved the way his Thambis have taken Tamil Nadu down the caste and communal cauldron.

  4. Avatar
    smitha says:

    EVR & his followers (including Anna) misled tamilians into believing that dravida naadu was a possibility, knowing fully well that it was not. From the start, it did not get the support of other southern states. They roused the tamilians with the slogan “adaindhaal dravida naadu illayen sudugaadu”. Finally, it was sudugaadu only.

  5. Avatar
    Subramaniam Narasimhan says:

    Dear Sir,
    I am reading this speech of Late Mr. CNA, after many years.
    Thank you Sir for bringing this to the fore now.

    The State of TN was indeed bad when CNA made that speech; he was accurate to an extent of 100% and more, for the following reasons.

    When linguistic re-organization of the States happened in the south, all the established industries went to the then Mysore (Bangalore based PSUs & PrSUs); all the fertile-agricultural regions and rivers went to Andhra Pradesh, including many established industries (Hyderabad based PSUs & PrSUs); power generating hydel stations went to Kerala. The rump that was left out of the old Madras State, that became Tamil Nadu later, was left high and dry in every economic aspect. The only major river system Kaveri was also not given exclusively to the Madras State. The dispute over the river is going on till date.

    Over and above this, the inept Madras congress-government of Kamaraj/Baktavachalam did not exert enough pressure on the Centre — despite being closely associated with the Nehrus and Gandhis — when PSUs and ancillaries got established in Bangalore and Hydrerabad (BEL, BHEL, HAL, ITI, CEA, HMT and many other PSUs, research insitutions, etc.; most of these have units in both cities above), Mumbai and other Northern cities.

    It is true that TN obtained a few crumbs like one BHEL and one IIT, a gun factory here and there. Many institutions like the Ordnance Factory at Aravankadu, and other Military Institutions had been in the state prior to the Independence.

    By the 1970s, the nation saw a large migration of highly skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labor from TN to other states, especially to Bangalore, Hyderabad; influx to Mumbai, Calcutta, Delhi and other industrial centres like Jamshedpur, Kanpur, etc. in the north had been going on for over 100 years from the State. It was estimated in 1985 that as many as 1 crore Tamizh speaking people live permanently outside the State, purely for their survival.

    After a complete let-down by the congress party at the Centre and at the State, it was the private sector in TN that rose to the occasion and provided some succor in the employment sector. The Naidus and Gownder families of Coimbatore, The TVS family of Madurai, the Raju families of Kovilpatty are some illustrious broad minded industrialists that come to our mind in this context.

    However, it is a tragedy that we find the same DMK turning Italian and hobnobbing with the same congress party that dumped the state when help was most needed in the history of our country. Political expediency need not have gone to this level of indecency, a veteran Anbazhagan eulogizing a Sonia as ‘Annai’ and sacrifice of a humanity in Sri Lanka at their hour of need on the altar of an election.

    CNA must be turning in his grave seeing these events that came to pass after his days.

  6. Avatar
    Dr.G.Johnson says:

    Dear Mt.Ganapathy. I am indeed glad to know that we were both at college at the same period and also staunch supporters of DMK. It is thrilling to recollect those young days of excitement especially during the Anti- Hindi Agitation. I feel competent to write about that glorious period when Anna was the beloved CM of Tamil Nadu. Of course we missed him tremendously during his demise. I went to Rajaji Hall on that day to pay homage. I will be writing all those which are still fresh in my memory. This is the only tribute I can render to our loving Anna. But what transpired after him is tragedy. I will also write about the changes as I remember them. Thank you for following Thoduvanam…With Regards…Dr.G.Johnson.

  7. Avatar
    Dr.G.Johnson says:

    Dear Mr.B.Ganesh,
    Thank you for your appreciation and the related comments on Thoduvanam. Happy to know that you are a reader of Thoduvanam.
    Of course if Anna were to be still alive, Tamil Nadu would have been different altogether, as he is not a politician but a statesman. What transpired after him was pure politics to secure power both in the party and the government ruled by DMK., and later by ADMK. We can call it power politics. After the division of DMK, there was no time to concentrate on the welfare of the State.Instead much time was wasted bringing allegations against one another.In order to win elections both sides resorted to gain caste votes by fielding caste based candidates. Hence instead of discouraging caste differences, which was one of the basic principles of DMK, as envisaged by Periyaar and Anna, caste was deliberately encouraged to amass the caste votes. Hence though reformative parties ( supposed to be ) were ruling the State caste has become an integral part of the Tamil society.Caste has been eroding the unity of the Tamils like cancer.Though Periyar propagated his reformative message vehemently against caste, it fell on deaf ears. Even the literate people believe in the caste as they were brought in it from childhood. Once a while when the young people are attracted through love, they are not encouraged to marry by both sides being different caste. If they defy and try to live together they live under threat amounting to murder.This is the pathetic state of affairs in Tamil Nadu. As long as caste prevails in Tamil Nadu, we cannot call our people literate! Only the illiterates of the past were made to believe in caste. Hence as long as caste continues, there is no difference between the literate and the illiterate! With Regards….Dr.G.Johnson.

  8. Avatar
    Dr.G.Johnson says:

    Thank you Mr.Subramanan Narasimhan for your appreciation of Anna’a speech.You have also endorsed your observations with relevant facts which are true.
    Tamil Nadu was in such a mess during the Congress regime since the time of Independence. In spite of such stalwarts like C.Subramaniam, Kamaraj, Bakthavatsalam, P.Chidambaram,L.Elayaperumal from the Congress in Tamil Nadu, they rarely raised their voices in Delhi for the progress of the State. All the while they were portraying a rosy picture of Tamil Nadu to secure their political lot. The DMK, then the main opposition in the Assembly, utilised this weakness of the Congress in their election campaign. And Anna has aptly presented the prevailing situation in Parliament, and instead of asking for grants or funds, he demanded an independent Dravida Nadu.
    From your comments I am really shocked that there are one million Tamils residing in the Northern States for their survival. This is pathetic and humiliating. It is strange that our political leaders are not aware of this important fact. Instead they are concerned with securing their seats with the support of the Congress, foregoing their principles in the bargain.
    Thank you for reading Thoduvanam and for your useful comments. With Regards…….Dr.G.Johnson.

  9. Avatar
    smitha says:

    Johnson,

    Whatever developments TN has had was under the chief ministership of Omandurar, kumarasamy raja & kamaraj. It was only under bhakthavatsalam that the decline began.

    But from the time DMK came to power, TN has gone from bad to worse.

  10. Avatar
    S Ganesh says:

    Thank you Dr. Johnson for your kind reply. It shows the interest you take in knowing the readers feelings. You are doing a fine job of bringing the history back to the present generation. You may have read Jeyamohan’s short but cryptic comment on the recent brutal murder and the caste conflicts plaguing Tamil Nadu. While Anna no doubt was a great statesman, it may not be wrong to say that both DK and DMK had as their genesis not the abolition of caste by a directed bigotry towards a numerically small and powerless Brahmin community. The entire edifice of DMK and DK was built upon anti brahminism and to this day DMK blames Brahmins. As far as DK is concerned, it is only Parpaneeyam which is responsible for all ills of Tamil nadu including the Tasmac culture, caste conflicts, corruption etc etc.

  11. Avatar
    arun says:

    What a great oratorical skill that Anna had! thanks to Dr. Johnson for having brought to focus this famous person and his unparalleled contributions. On Caste war, I have a humble question to pose.
    In the last 50 – 60 years, there have a number of marriages invoving brahmin boys marrying other caste girls; and brahmin girls marrying other caste boys; but in how many instances there were violent reactions like the recent one? in fact, the brahmins with all the animosities they received from every other caste, greatly accepted these inter-caste marriages, and lived together and created a casteess society today. But still, a few parties in TN keep attacking them both verbally and materially. why this duplicacy even now?

  12. Avatar
    க்ருஷ்ணகுமார் says:

    அன்பின் வைத்யர் ஸ்ரீ ஜான்சன் அவர்கள் க்ஷமிக்க வேண்டும்.

    ஸ்ரீ அண்ணாதுரை அவர்களுடைய உரையில் எழுச்சி மிக்க கோட்பாடுகள் எதையும் நான் காணவில்லை.

    ஒரே ஒரு விஷயத்தில் கிஞ்சித்தாவது நான் அவருடைய உரையுடன் உடன்படுகிறேன் என்றால் காங்க்ரஸ் கட்சியின் ஊழல்களை அவர் தனது உரையில் கண்டிக்க முற்பட்டமை. அதை ஸ்ரீமான் அண்ணாதுரை அவர்கள் தனது கன்னிப்பேச்சில் இடித்துறைத்த விஷயம் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளத் தக்கது.

    ஹிந்துஸ்தானத்தை கிட்டத்தட்ட் ஐந்து தசாப்தங்களாக ஆட்சி செய்த காங்க்ரஸ் கட்சி நம் தேசத்தில் ஊழல் என்ற விஷ வ்ருக்ஷத்தை விதைத்து அதற்கு நீருட்டி பாராட்டி செழித்து வளரச் செய்தது. இப்படிப்பட்ட ஒரு கட்சியுடன் கூட்டு சேர்ந்து ஹிந்துஸ்தானத்தில் ஊழல் வ்ருக்ஷத்தின் காய் கனிகளை இவருடைய த்ராவிட இயக்கம் பங்குபோட்டுக்கொள்ளும் எதிர்காலத்தில் என்பதை ஸ்ரீ அண்ணாதுரை அவர்கள் நினைத்திருக்க மாட்டார் போலும்.

    மற்றபடி பொய்யிலே பிறந்து பொய்யிலே வளர்ந்து தமிழ் மக்களை பொய்யெனும் புதைகுழியில் தள்ளிய த்ராவிடக் கருத்தாக்கங்கள் ……………இன்றைய திகதியில் விழிப்புணர்வு பெற்ற தமிழக மக்களால் விஸர்ஜனம் செய்யத் தகுந்த நிலையில் இருக்கையில்…………….

    தாங்கள் எப்பாடுபட்டாவது அதற்கு உயிர் கொடுக்க முனைவது புரிகிறது. ப்ராண ப்ரயாண திசையில் இருக்கும் ………. தமிழகத்தை அழித்தொழித்த த்ராவிட இயக்கத்திற்கு……… இது போன்ற வ்யாசம் தவிக்கும் வாய்க்குத் தண்ணீர் போன்றது தான்.

    ஊழல் என்பதற்கு அகராதியில் அர்த்தம் சொல்ல வேண்டுமானால் த்ராவிடக் கழகங்கள் என்று சொல்லிவிட்டால் ரொம்பப் பொருத்தமாகி விடும்.

    நிற்க.

    திண்ணை தளத்தில் அவ்வப்போது………….. திடீரெக்ஸ் தமிழுணர்வு கிளம்பி ஆங்க்லத்தில் உத்தரங்கள் எழுதுபவர்களை சாடும்.

    என்னே ஒரு முன்னகர்வு. என்னுடைய உத்தரத்தை விடுத்து ஆதியோடந்தம் ஒவ்வொரு உத்தரமும் ஆங்க்லத்திலேயே.

    மெய்யாலுமே மெய்சிலிர்க்க வைக்கிறது.

    ஸ்ரீ அண்ணாதுரை அவர்களது உரையில் காணப்படும் விஷத்துளிகள் பலதும் துலக்கப்பட வேண்டும்.

    ஆனால் நெஞ்சை முள்ளாக உறுத்தும் விஷத்துளி ……… த்ராவிட இயக்கங்களால் தேவைப்படும்போது உபயோகிக்கப்பட்டு கடாசப்படும் காகிதத் தாள் போன்ற ………. த்ராவிட நாடு கோரிக்கை.

    ஸ்ரீமான் அண்ணாதுரை அவர்களது ஸ்வயநிர்ணயம் என்ற கோட்பாடு ஹிந்துஸ்தானத்தின் அரசியல் சாஸனத்தை வழிவகுத்த ததாகத பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்களது உரையில் மறுதலிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

    இடதுசாரி சார்பாளர் என்றும் ………ஹிந்துஸ்தானத்தின் அறிஞர் பெருமக்களில் ஒருவராகவும் ……..பெருமை மிகுந்த எழுத்தாளராகவும் அறியப்படும் ………ஸ்ரீமான் பக்ஷிராஜன் அனந்தக்ருஷ்ணன் அவர்களது ஃபேஸ்புக் பதிவு ஒன்றை நீண்ட நாட்கள் முன்னர் வாசித்தது என் நினைவில் இருந்தது.

    ஆங்க்லத்திலான பதிவு தான் அது.

    அதில் நமது நாட்டில் மாகாணங்களின் கூட்டமைப்பு என்ற கருத்தாக்கத்தை முற்படுத்தி பிரிவினைவாத சக்திகள் பட்டம் பறக்க விடும் அவலத்தை பகடி செய்துள்ளார். கூடவே ததாகத பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்கள் அதன் பொருளை விரிவாக விளக்குவதையும் அதனூடே நமது தேசம் பிரிக்கவொண்ணாத உறுதியான ஒரு தேசம் என்ற கருத்தாக்கத்தை அழகுற விளக்குவதையும் அவர் உரை வாயிலாக பகிர்ந்துள்ளார்.

    ஸ்ரீமான் அண்ணாதுரை அவர்களது பிரிவினைவாத உரை என்ற விஷத்துக்கு…….. ததாகத பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்களது உரை ஹாலஹலவிஷத்தை முறிக்கத் தக்க அம்ருதம் என்பது என் தாழ்மையான அபிப்ராயம்.

    ஜெய்ஹிந்த்

  13. Avatar
    ஷாலி says:

    //நமது தேசம் பிரிக்கவொண்ணாத உறுதியான ஒரு தேசம் என்ற கருத்தாக்கத்தை அழகுற விளக்குவதையும் அவர் உரை வாயிலாக பகிர்ந்துள்ளார்..//

    இந்திய தேசம் என்று ஒன்றாக ஒரே தேசமாக இருந்தது.மவுரியர்,குப்தர்,முகலாய காலங்களில் துணைக்கண்டம் ஒரே பேரரசரின் கீழ் ஆட்சி செய்யப்பட்டாலும் கூட அரசியலால் முற்றாக இணைந்திருந்ததாகக் கூற முடியாது.நாட்டின் தென் கோடியில் இந்த பேரரசுகள் செல்வாக்கு பெற முடியவில்லை.

    இந்தியாவை ஒரே நாடாக இணைத்தவர்கள் வெள்ளையர்களான வெல்லெஸ்லி,டல்கெளஸி பிரபுக்களே.ஒற்றுமையின்றி தங்களுக்குள் சண்டையிட்டுகொண்ட இந்து மன்னர்கள்,பிரிட்டிஷாருக்கு பணம் கொடுத்து படை உதவி பெற்றனர்.பணம் கொடுக்க முடியாமல் போகும்போது தங்கள் ராஜ்யத்தை கொடுத்தனர்.இப்படி இணைக்கப்பட்டதே இந்தியா.சுதந்திரம் பெற்ற பின்னர் இதே வெள்ளையர் யுக்தியைக் கைகொண்டு படைகளை அனுப்பி மிரட்டி 500 சமஸ்தானங்களை வல்லபாய் படேல் இந்தியாவுடன் இணைத்தார்.

    க்ருஷ்ண குமார் உச்சி முகரும் அகண்ட பாரதம் வந்த வரலாறு இதுதான்.

    //ததாகத பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்களது உரை ஹாலஹலவிஷத்தை முறிக்கத் தக்க அம்ருதம் என்பது என் தாழ்மையான அபிப்ராயம்.//

    தாதா சாஹேப் டாக்டர்.அம்பேத்கார்,1936 ம் ஆண்டு பூனா வில் நடந்த தீண்டப்படாதவர்களின் மாநாட்டில் பேசிய உரை,

    உங்களை ஒரு மனித இனமாக ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளாத குடிப்பதற்கு நீர் கொடுக்காத கோவில்களில் அனுமதிக்காத ஒரு மதம், மதம் என்று அழைக்கப்படுவதற்க்கே தகுதியற்றது.நீங்கள் கல்வி கற்பதற்கு தடை விதிக்கும்,நீங்கள் பொருள் வளத்தில் முன்னேறுவதற்கு இடையூராக இருக்கும் மதம், “மதம்” என்று சுட்டப்படுவதற்க்கே தகுதியற்றது.

    உடன் உறையும் சக மதத்தினருடன் மனித மாண்புடன் நடந்து கொள்வதை தனது உபாசகர்க ளுக்கு கற்றுத்தராத மதத்தின் நடைமுறை,அடக்குமுறையை அடாவடித்தனமாக காண்பிப்பது என்பது தவிர வேறல்ல…..அறியாமையில் இருப்போர் அறியாமையிலேயே மூழ்கி இருக்கவும்,ஏழைகள் ஏழைகளாகவே இருக்கவும் திட்டமிட்டு செயலாற்றும் மதம் ஒரு மதமல்ல.அது ஒரு அவக்கேடு. –Dhananjay Keer: DR.Ambedkar-Life and His Mission. P.273.

    டாக்டர்.அம்பேத்கார் இந்த உரை நிகழ்த்தி 80 வருடங்கள் கடந்து விட்டன.இந்து சாதிச் சமுகம் எந்தளவு தலித் மக்களை முன்னேற்றம் அடையச் செய்துள்ளனர் என்று பார்க்கும்போது, இளவரசன்,கோகுல்ராஜ்,உடுமலை சங்கர் போன்ற இளைஞர் பெயர்கள் நினைவுக்கு வருவது ……க்ருஷ்ண குமார் ‘சங்’கம் இதைப்பற்றி எல்லாம் பேசாது…அகண்ட பாரதம் மட்டும் பேசும்!

  14. Avatar
    ஷாலி says:

    //ஊழல் என்பதற்கு அகராதியில் அர்த்தம் சொல்ல வேண்டுமானால் த்ராவிடக் கழகங்கள் என்று சொல்லிவிட்டால் ரொம்பப் பொருத்தமாகி விடும்.//

    க்ருஷ்ணாஜி! என்ன இன்னும் கைப்புள்ளே லெவலுக்கு இருக்கிறீர்கள்? ஊழல் என்னும் சொல் மாநிலங்களைக்கடந்து தேசியமாகி பல வருடங்களாகி விட்டது.அரசுப்பணத்தை கொள்ளை அடிப்பதில்,திராவிட,தேசியக் கட்சி என்ற பாகுபாடு ஒன்றும் இல்லை.

    ஆத்தோட தண்ணி போனா அய்யா குடி…அம்மா குடி….இதுதான் நாட்டு நடப்பு.
    உங்கள் உத்தம புத்திரர்கள், கார்கில் போரில் சவப்பெட்டியிலேயே தேசப்பற்றை அடக்கம் செய்து காந்தி நோட்டை கைப்பற்றிக்கொண்டார்கள்.

    கண்ணியமான கட்சித் தலைவர் பங்காரு லட்சுமணன் கமுக்கமாக பேரம் பேசி கரன்சியை கைப்பற்றி மாட்டியது நாடறிந்தது.இந்திய அரசியல்வாதிகளுக்கு காந்தி படம் போட்ட காகிதத்தின் மீது கடும் பக்தி.எப்படியாவது காந்தியை தம் கணக்கில் சேர்க்க படாத பாடுபடுகின்றனர்.கும்பிடுகின்ற சாமிக்கு கொடுக்கிற பங்குத்தொகையை உண்டியலில் போட்டுவிட்டால் சாமி கண்டுகொள்ளாது.

    மற்றபடி,ஒழுக்கம்,நேர்மை,வாய்மையை போதிக்கும்,இராமாயணம்,மகாபாரதம்,பகவத்கீதை போன்ற புனிதங்கள்.வழிபாட்டிற்கு மாத்திரமே! வாழ்க்கைக்கு அல்ல..இங்கு ஆடுவதும் பாடுவதும் காசுக்கு…ஆளைக் குல்லா போடுவதும் காசுக்கு….

  15. Avatar
    க்ருஷ்ணகுமார் says:

    அன்பர் ஷாலி

    விதிவிலக்காகவாவது எப்போது காண்டக்ஸ்ட் சார்ந்து விவாதிக்கக் கற்றுக்கொள்ளப் போகிறீர்கள்.

    ததாகத பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்களது உரையை நான் உதாஹரித்தது அவர் அரசியல் சாஸனத்தின் ஷரத்து 1 …. இதைப் பற்றிப் பேசியது.

    நான் குறிப்பிட்ட வாசகம்

    \\\ ஸ்ரீமான் அண்ணாதுரை அவர்களது பிரிவினைவாத உரை என்ற விஷத்துக்கு…….. ததாகத பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்களது உரை ஹாலஹலவிஷத்தை முறிக்கத் தக்க அம்ருதம் என்பது என் தாழ்மையான அபிப்ராயம். \\

    நீங்கள் விவாதிக்க வேண்டிய புள்ளியான பிரிவினைவாதத்தை கமுக்கமாக மறைத்து……………

    வாசகத்தை பாதி வெட்டி விட்டு மீதி பாதியை காபி பேஸ்ட் செய்து………. விவாதத்திற்கு எடுத்துக்கொள்ளாத விஷயத்தை விவாதத்திற்கு வைத்திருக்கிறீர்கள். இது சரியான முறைமையா?

    உங்களைச் சொல்லிக் குற்றமில்லை. திண்ணை தளத்தில் ததாகத பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்களது ஆங்க்ல உரையை ஸ்ரீ பக்ஷிராஜன் அனந்தக்ருஷ்ணன் அவர்களது குறிப்புகளுடன் பகிர்ந்திருந்தேன்………… ஆங்க்லத்தில்……….. அது பதியப்படவில்லை.

    ஒருக்கால் பிறிதொருவரது கருத்து மற்றும் பாபாசாஹேப் அவர்களது கருத்து என இரண்டும் சேர்ந்து பதியப்பட்டது என்பதற்காக விட்டுவிட்டார்களா தெரியவில்லை?

    இருக்கட்டும்………… பாபாசாஹேப் அவர்களது ஷரத்து 1 பற்றிய விளக்கத்தை மட்டிலும் அவர் ஆங்க்லத்தில் அளித்த உரையை இதையடுத்து பதிகிறேன்.

    அது பதியப்படும் என்று நம்புகிறேன்.

    ஸ்ரீமான் அண்ணாதுரையின் கருத்துக்கு மாற்றான பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்களின் ஷரத்து 1 பற்றிய விளக்கத்தை திண்ணை தளம் வெளியிடும் என்ற நம்பிக்கையில்…………. தாங்கள் அதை வாசித்து விட்டு…………. தேசத்தின் இறையாண்மை பற்றிய உங்களது ப்ரவசனாதிகளை மேற்கொண்டு பதியலாம்.

    ஜெய்ஹிந்த்.

  16. Avatar
    க்ருஷ்ணகுமார் says:

    ததாகத பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்கள் அரசியல் சாஸன ஷரத்து 1 பற்றி Constituent Assembly ல் ஆற்றிய மிக முக்யமான உரை கீழே கொடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது :-

    “Some critics have taken objection to the description of India in Article 1 of the Draft Constitution as a Union of States. It is said that the correct phraseology should be a Federation of States. It is true that South Africa which is a unitary State is described as a Union. But Canada which is a Federation is also called a Union. Thus the description of India as a Union, though its constitution is Federal, does no violence to usage. But what is important is that the use of the word Union is deliberate. I do not know why the word ‘Union’ was used in the Canadian Constitution. But I can tell you why the Drafting Committee has used it. The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a Federation and that the Federation not being the result of an agreement no State has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible. Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source. The Americans had to wage a civil war to establish that the States have no right of secession and that their Federation was indestructible. The Drafting Committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to dispute.”

    ஆக அரசியல் சாஸனத்தை வகுத்தளித்த சான்றோர்களின் கருத்து தெள்ளத் தெளிவு.

    ஸ்ரீ அண்ணாதுரை அவர்களின் உரையில் ஸ்வயநிர்ணயம் பற்றி அவர் பகிர்ந்த கருத்துக்கள் அரசியல் சாஸனத்தின் ஷரத்துக்கு முரணானது. அதுவும் அரசியல் சாஸனத்தை வகுத்தளித்த பாபாசாஹேப் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்கள் இந்த விஷயத்தை தெளிவு படுத்திய பின்னர்…………. விவாததத்திற்கு வழிவகுக்காமல் ஷரத்து ஒன்றின் சாரம் இதுதான் எனத் தெள்ளெனத் தெளிவாகப் பகிர்ந்த பின்னர் ………… பிரிவினைவாதம் பேசுவது என்பது …………..அறவே நேர்மையற்ற செயல்.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *